User talk:Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2014/March

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico

Template:Infobox Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Is there a reason you're not using them? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• No particular reason, I typically don't use them 'cuz I do incremental editing (many small edits one after the other in quick succession). I do use them however when I make significant changes in one big sweep. Is this something that concerns you? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It just makes it very difficult for other's to quickly scan the history of a page for particular edits... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean crisis

Hello Ahnoneemoos. You've opened a move discussion at Talk:2014 Crimean crisis#Requested move to "Crimean crisis", but except for Bedchamber crisis the actual article is at the upcased title in every case. For example, Suez Crisis. (Suez crisis is only a redirect, not the real article). Maybe you could widen your search to find examples that favor your proposal? Thanks, EdJohnston 18:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Actually this only affects the question of capitalization. You could still have an argument that '2014' isn't needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bring that up in the discussion. Eurozone crisis is not capitalized and was given as an example. To address your concern: Bedchamber crisis, Cuban missile crisis, Iran hostage crisis. It seems we use "Crisis" (capitalized) when it's preceded by a nation's name but "crisis" when not. Can you please reply to my request on the Talk page and expose this finding? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to participate in the actual move discussion. I only suggest that you reflect on the capitalization to try to make it consistent with other crises. It seems that well-defined diplomatic crises often use upper case 'Crisis.' It's not obvious why Eurozone crisis is different, and I can't express why it seems intuitively OK at lower case. There was an actual move discussion at Talk:Cuban missile crisis/Archive 2#Requested move which caused it to move to lower case. The main argument was that's how it was referred to in sources. Since the Crimean crisis is a current event, it is not so obvious that there will be only one, so it seems logical to include '2014' as of this moment. Maybe in a couple of years dropping the 2014 will seem more logical. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I think we gave Yatsenyuk Government together a rather good lead section. Thanks to us 2! It was a bit of a bumpy ride to get there... But all is well now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sure thing. If you need help in proofreading or grammar just let me know. I need a lot of help understanding intricacies about Crimea which I'm pretty sure you can help me out as an Ukrainian. Can you, for example, help me list the current members of the Crimean parliament, and which regions do they represent? I'm from America so I'm more used to the presidential system and first-past-the-post rather than proportional representation so I need to understand how Crimean MPs get elected and who do they represent. It's very important for Wikipedia and the world that the Crimean parliament article is brought up to speed. Can you help me out please? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I was able to find a list of the 50 Constituencies.... And here is a partial list/puzzle of who won those Constituencies in the Crimean parliamentary election, 2010.... The list is only partial since the website of the Government of Crimea has been shut down.... And for some reason I was not able to find another, more helpful list... Hopes this helps. Mind you it will be a lot of work (and I am afraid I don't want to spend my time) puzzeling out who won which Constituencies in Crimea in 2010 (Sorry). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sovereignty of Puerto Rico during the Cold War

I removed the tags, the article is not yet complete. Its content was splintered from its main source because another user felt that it was too long and it remains unmodified. The other user is not cooperating with the other article after tagging it, so fixing that one remains a priority for the moment. But if you can summarize the body of Sovereignty of PR and expand the lead, I would be grateful. El Alternativo (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Crimean referendum, 2014, you may be blocked from editing. diff Львівське (говорити) 15:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bring this disagreement to the talk page and don't you dare to "warn" me about this issue again or accuse me of vandalism ever again. You are not an administrator. The ballot clearly says, and I quote verbatim (source: [1] from the Crimean parliament itself):

Вы за восстановление действия Конституции Республики Крым 1992 года и за статус Крыма как части Украины?

which roughly translates into English as:

Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and for the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine ?

You "warning" and accusation are quite disrespectful.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Yuli-mamchur-dialogues-with-pro-russian-forces-in-crimea.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yuli-mamchur-dialogues-with-pro-russian-forces-in-crimea.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Yuli-mamchur-dialogues-with-pro-russian-forces-in-crimea.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Yuli-mamchur-dialogues-with-pro-russian-forces-in-crimea.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

You copied a large amount of content from Crimea to Republic of Crimea. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, you should have indicated where that content came from in an edit summary. I have to run: please find an appropriate template to indicate this on the article talk page so the article history is at least theoretically preserved; I think WP:RIA has what you need. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• {{copied-multi}} is the template you are looking for. I'm not interesting in doing this clerical work so either report it so that my edits are deleted or request that someone else does this for us. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What a strange attitude. You're willing to break the license and want someone else to do the "clerical" work for you? Drmies (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Please, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. I was not "willing" to "break the license". I'm not a lawyer. Like I said, I do not deny what I have done and take full responsibility for it. As you have clearly pointed out this may have legal consequences. As I'm not willing to do the clerical work then I request that you, as an administrator, delete the edits I performed as I cannot undo them myself because I'm not an administrator. Does this solution satisfy your concerns? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      • No, I was just hoping that you could the very minor thing of pasting that template on the talk page. Is that too much to ask? I was busy, real things in real life, you know, or I would have done it already. And think for a moment: how can I go into the history and delete your contributions, when there've been a half a million edits since then? Delete the Republic of Crimea--what do you want, Putin on my ass? Drmies (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
        • LOL. Give me a couple of hours. I just ate dinner and I'm relaxing now after a long day. I can definitely do this, just not right now, right now. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
          • It's already done. Just use an edit summary next time--"text copied from Crimea". So much easier. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the reminder. Yes, there is some justice, but there are more who still haven't received the MoH that they deserved. By the way, I did some exploring, check out the "Gallery" of pictures that I made in the Camp Verde, Arizona article. I didn't write the article just did the gallery. I am not one to give up, I have a lot to do and see before I kick the bucket. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV claim at Sevastopol article

Hello, I'm Jojhutton. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JOJ ^Hutton 18:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Article move

Hi, Ahnoneemoos. You moved and renamed Supreme Council of Crimea to Crimean Parliament. Did you happen to notice the talk page? Talk:Crimean Parliament#Not the same article This is a contested move. Please move it back or create a new article. Please address this issue on the talk page. Thanks. USchick (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I can't move back stuff. Go to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requests to revert undiscussed moves and request an admin to move it back to its original name. Bear in mind that I will oppose your request. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to address the fact that you performed a contested move without any discussion on the talk page? USchick (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back. (In fact any editor could have done that.) Let the discussion commence... Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! USchick (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox multichoice referendum

Template:Infobox multichoice referendum has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sevastopol". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on stamps

I reverted your reversion. It is a different topic, that is the point and if we don't have a separate article most of the images will need to be deleted as they are not fair use for the original article. The original content should never have been in that article as it was about Puerto Rico ON stamps, not the stamps OF Puerto Rico. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• We had a discussion about this at Talk:Puerto Rico#Puerto Rico on stamps. Perhaps we should move/copy that discussion to Talk:Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico and find out what's the community input on this? I'm not a philately expert nor an enthusiast so I'd rather listen to what you guys from WikiProject Philately have to say about this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have just commented elsewhere on this point, I was not aware of the discussion and it may have taken place on the wrong project. There are two problems with leaving it in the original article. 1) It is a different topic 2) The images are not under a valid fair use as they are not essential to a discussion of the stated subject of the article, which is well established as stamps OF a country, not ABOUT a country. I submit that my changes are fine and prevent the images being challenged. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any way you can get the guys from WikiProject Philately involved in this discussion? I don't think any of us were philately experts and we were just going for what we considered best with our minimal knowledge of the subject at hand. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, there's no need. It's not an unnecessary fork, is correct in principle, protects the fair use rationale and enables the article to be expanded. We have an established category for topical stamp articles to which this is a valid addition. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Another move request regarding Ukraine and Crimea

Hello, you participated in a previous move request regarding Crimea and Ukraine, so I thought you might be interested in this new request that is intended to address objections to the previous one. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Saludos, Ahnoneemoos.

I provided the discussion you requested on the Puerto Rico talk page: [2]

Sarason (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Done

Ok. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Did you forget to finish 101st Troop Command and Puerto Rico National Guard Museum? Keep up the good work so far!

Bearian (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Brian! I have been trying to get more info but I have not had time to visit the National Guard museum yet and I don't think I will be able until Christmas. I think they have a public relations office that can help getting more info in case you are interested in the subject. Take care! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Natalia

I've boldly reverted your tag additions; would it be reasonable for me to ask for a thorough discussion with you first, before you make up your mind?

As of present, the overwhelming majority of third-party media coverage on this individual is in reference to her as an online internet phenomenon, moreso than her actual political life. This internet phenomenon is clearly notable, as demonstrated by the media coverage, and one might even say that much of this person's notability comes from the internet phenomenon, moreso than her position in Crimea. Wikipedia covers plenty of internet phenomenon-related topics, and this happens to be the "latest" online trend, so to speak. Sure, in future we may see more of her presence in the field of politics, however as of present, the significant portion of coverage relating to her is based on her internet following.

To put things into perspective, for the past 10 days or so, 2014 Crimean crisis gets anywhere between 15,000 to 42,000 viewers per day, a significant drop since the page was featured on the Wikipedia front page, however Natalia's article has averaged between 40,000 and 60,000 daily views, which shows just how much she is trending at the moment. In addition, the Russian Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia articles are also having large amounts of traffic which overshadow all of the politics-related articles presently trending. This is just how significant this has become. In China and Japan, political news reports about the Crimea crisis are absolutely dwarfed by coverage of Natalia's internet trends. Google and Baidu search trends are skyrocketing, and social media trends on Twitter, Sina Weibo and Vkontakte are following suit. To say that the topic of her internet following is insignificant or of questionable importance as your tagging implies would be, in my opinion, quite contradictory to the real-world evidence out there.

Do you have any disagreements with what I've said? I'm willing to hear out your opinions on the matter. That said, I sure hope I've been convincing enough here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is challenging the notability of her internet popularity. The tag is about the importance of all the text in that section. For example:

She soon caught attention on the Internet because of her particular attractiveness.

According to whom? She is attractive to the modern-white dominated world but, is she attractive to Arabs, Indians, Africans, or the native people of the Amazon? See where I'm going? Attractiveness is subjective.

A video clip of the press conference was uploaded by a Japanese poster onto YouTube; in English it was titled 'New Attorney General of Crimea is beautiful', in Japanese the title stated 'Too beautiful'. The clip (which featured no translation) quickly racked up more than 300,000 YouTube views within a day.

Why exactly is that important? How do I know that racking up 300,000 YouTube views within a day is important?

She went viral in not only Japan, but also China,[13] while receiving coverage from Chinese news outlets like China News Service and Guangming Online.

Why is receiving coverage from China News Service and Guangming Online important?

She was noted to have been discussed on 4chan, Reddit, the Chinese microblog service Weibo, and the Russian social network Vkontakte.

Why is being discussed on 4chan, reddit, Weibo, and Vkontaket important? People discuss a million things a day on those websites. Why is this particular instance important to mention?

Following her press conference, an onslaught of anime-style moe fanart of Poklonskaya was created and uploaded to the internet, most notably on the Japanese artwork-sharing website Pixiv.

Why is that important? How much is "an onslaught"? Why is Pixiv notable or important to mention?

Natalia has stated in an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda that since she is often busy with her everyday work, her daughter keeps track of all her online fanart for her.

Why is mentioning that important?

Following the flood of Poklonskaya fanart, numerous real-life images were discovered on social media sites and also went viral around the world.

Why is mentioning that important?

Why do we need to have five fanart drawings?

See where I'm going?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The points are important because third-party reliable sources repeatedly cover it, and Wikipedia covers what third-party sources cover. By acting as though it doesn't exist, we're missing out on an important aspect of the topic. Coverage of these points make it important, lack of coverage would make the same thing unimportant. If the media didn't cover that "She went viral not only in Japan, but also China", then that would be a different story. "(attractive) according to whom?" - the article already implies that she was deemed attractive by Japanese internet users (if you check closely, it actually links to kawaii); though, this could probably be clarified, and I do agree that the way it's currently worded may leave room for questions.

Finally, many of the points that you've specifically pointed out are there to be descriptive, so I don't understand the point of pointing them out. The article states that the art come from Pixiv, because the art comes from Pixiv - it doesn't come from Picasso's basement or the back kitchen of a Starbucks. Just like how grass is green, Pixiv is mentioned because the art is from Pixiv. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't cover everything just because a reliable source covers it. We cover material that has an encyclopedic value. Furthermore, we write in a way so as to not imply anything. For example, if you were telling me something like, "Natalia was covered in so-and-so newspaper front page, which is China's most widely viewed newspaper with more than X amount of readers per day." THAT is highly encyclopedic. Because the individual was (i) covered by a newspaper of wide publication and (ii) was specifically shown in the front page cover. But right now the article just says, "well she was covered in this newspaper and that one." So what? Why is that important?

Regarding your other concern: I don't know what Pixiv is. Why is that important to mention? Is Pixiv a website ranked in the top 10 in the world? Top 10 in Japan? See where I'm going?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Now I get what you're trying to say. In that case, I'll probably get to it within the next few moments or so (that is, explaining the significance behind things). A few sentences probably do need further clarification. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That said, some information shouldn't be reduplicated, and readers who wish to discover more generally follow links. China News Service would tell you that it's the second largest major agency in China, Vkontakte would tell you that it controls a monopoly over social networking in Russia, and Pixiv is a major online community in Japan dedicated to art which features 3.3 billion monthly page views. Too much unnecessary puffery just adds redundant words, and the purpose of having wikilinks is to circumvent this redundancy. I'm going to reword these lines so that the significance of the points are more clearer, but I'm not going to explain each and every one in detail. If you're expecting that kind of detail, then I think you're probably thinking too far, because we don't even do that elsewhere. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Benlisquare that everything covered by third-party reliable sources is notable. The sources actually mention Pixis...

1. "She soon caught attention on the Internet because of her particular attractiveness." — The sources say that she caught attention because of her looks, but don't say her attractiveness was "particular". This should be reworded.
2. "A video clip of the press conference was uploaded by a Japanese poster onto YouTube; in English it was titled 'New Attorney General of Crimea is beautiful', in Japanese the title stated 'Too beautiful'. The clip (which featured no translation) quickly racked up more than 300,000 YouTube views within a day." — All the initial reports were saying this repeatedly. (Covered by multiple sources.)
3. "She went viral in not only Japan, but also China, while receiving coverage from Chinese news outlets like China News Service and Guangming Online." — "Receiving coverage from Chinese news outlets like China News Service and Guangming Online" was not covered by third-party sources. (I'm okay with deleting the second part of the sentence if it wasn't. I didn't really look at the sources recently, though.)
4. "She was noted to have been discussed on 4chan, Reddit, the Chinese microblog service Weibo, and the Russian social network Vkontakte." — If this wasn't actually reported by third-party sources, we should delete it.
5. "Following her press conference, an onslaught of anime-style moe fanart of Poklonskaya was created and uploaded to the internet, most notably on the Japanese artwork-sharing website Pixiv."

   The first two thirds of the sentence are essencial.

   "most notably on the Japanese artwork-sharing website Pixiv." — The sources mentioned Pixiv. If you have concerns about the sentence advertising the site, let's discuss it. But formally it was mentioned by third-party sources many times. And I think Pixis played an important part in what happened and it is fair to mention the website.

6. "Natalia has stated in an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda that since she is often busy with her everyday work, her daughter keeps track of all her online fanart for her." — I've already deleted this cause the source was misinterpreted a little bit. (Her daughter keeps track of the fan art, but she doesn't do it "for her" cause Poklonskaya comes home late and doesn't have time. She didn't even say she looked at any pictures.
7. "Following the flood of Poklonskaya fanart, numerous real-life images were discovered on social media sites and also went viral around the world."

   "numerous real-life images were discovered on social media sites and also went viral around the world." — Actually, I think this was the main point of the sources that appeared prior to March 17—19. Later, everyone started talking about the fan art. But maybe it's not really important... Let's think about it...

8. Why do we need to have five fanart drawings? — Cause it's not against the rules and because it illustrates the article. It's called "supporting materials", supporting materials are necessary for every article.

Anyway, let's make it sound more encyclopedic while keeping the essence intact. And the two stories about her going viral and about the "onslaught" of fan art are essencial. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Following the flood of Poklonskaya fanart, numerous real-life images were discovered on social media sites and also went viral around the world." - Yes, this sentence might not actually be that important. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol

Would be nice if you left edit summaries and explanation on the talk on what you're doing there. Where did the tables go? Materialscientist (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol Orthographic projection

Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Orthographic_projection_of_Sevastopol and give Feedback, please. --DLommes (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

updated.--DLommes (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

and once again.--DLommes (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

also made the other map you requested.--DLommes (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

updated--DLommes (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

and the non-highlighted one as well.--DLommes (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright infringement in User:Ahnoneemoos/sandbox

I appreciate your help in the case of Crimean conflict articles, but your edit [3] didn’t provide attribution for the content you, obviously, copied from Special:PermanentLink/601002537. While known persons break policies of Wikipedia, don’t join them in it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's a sandbox. Sandboxes are testing grounds that are deleted without objection. Right now it's being used to portray a solution for a problem we have. It is not an article. Once the conversation at ANI is over the sandbox will be deleted. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  When you reused my content, certainly at Special:Diff/601659200#Russia that is an article, and probably in other places too, you didn’t provide any attribution, fraudulently presenting this section as an own work. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't present anything as my own work. Stop accusing me of stuff. There is a template, called {{copied}} which is used exactly for this. From the Talk page I see that that it has already been placed by yourself. So, what exactly is the problem? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

First, there was no assumption of bad faith, “hijacked” is a matter of fact (you used my proposal and my content without citing me), and “presented” is a matter of editing protocol: all stuff originating from your edits is claimed as your stuff unless another is specified. Now I say you things that such advanced editor as Ymblanter can infer, but you evidently need these things in the form of detailed explications. The {{copied}} template doesn’t provide a list of contributors, but provides a link to the source, as a MediaWiki oldid= link. When it is accessible, its [History] tab opens the edit history, but it will not be accessible if the page containing the revision in question, namely Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), became deleted. In such unlucky case {{copied}} became useless for everyone but sysops. Specifying something like “==Stances== section… written by user:Incnis Mrsi” in the edit summary could specify an attribution directly, eliminating such unsafe dependence.

If you reused a Wikipedia content (my content, or else), then it is you who should care about attribution. Neither is it the author, nor Ymblanter, nor one user:Anthony Appleyard. BTW were your “complex history merge” succeed, the conflict would defuse, but it will almost certainly be denied. So, you can now compare a damage to Wikipedia made by ignominious “discussion closure” (made by a sysop), by ignominious edit warring in Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (made by another sysop), and by you who simply omitted some information (my nickname in one case, link to Republic of Crimea (country) in other cases) during your edits. Note that I currently waste my personal time explaining you a stuff that you was able to read in the WP:Copying within Wikipedia link I gave you three days ago. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that this adventure caused you to waste your time to the stuff unrelated to improvements to Wikipedia. Now we should wait for a consensus of admins and editors on the main question. After a broad problem (what to do with articles and their remnants) found its solutions, there will be easier to resolve local questions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really tired of your diatribe. If this is so important to you, why don't you ask for my edits to be deleted? That way we don't use your content, AT ALL. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your file uploads

Please stop uploading files from Commons to Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Huh? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

For example File:Budget-of-the-government-of-puerto-rico-2011-percent.png. You seem to be updating it but why aren't you doing that in Commons? This one: File:Juan-jose-medina-lamela-brigadier-general-puerto-rico-national-guard.jpg. They're all in Commons already, with the same resolution and correct licensing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ooooohhhh, wait a sec. I see what's happening - you uploaded them here, and they've been moved to Commons by another user... I get it. Sorry about that, please ignore me §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea

Hey amigo, I think that your ideas on the Flag article were excellent. I did some stuff and I noticed that you did too. Let's hope that everything turns out fine. On the other hand, I want to share with you that today I received a book in the mail titled "Puertorriqueños Who Served With Guts, Glory, and Honor by : Greg Boudonck" where the pages 141 to 147 were about me. It was a total surprise, because I did not expect such an honor. I only expected a special mention because I provided some info. on some of our military heroes but, not a whole thing. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Equirectangular projection of Sevastopol

Please check. --DLommes (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Update.--DLommes (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

and another update. --DLommes (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a review of corrections made to the page. Thank you

Would it be possible to re-review the page for Daniel R. Scoggin? Substantial changes have been made to clean up the page, insert citations at the end of paragraphs, and link to other Wikipedia information. Thank you very much, Sandsailor Sandsailor (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)