User talk:Asterion/Archive 2

Spanish History

I'm the person who wrote the "Modern Spain" article. I know my english level is quite sub-par, especially relating to translation skills and spelling mistakes, however, there was no data for Spanish history from the restoration (1870s) until the modern days, and I was studying it at the time, so I decided to create the basic articles to draw some attention to it. And you are indeed right, my english level is only secondary, as i am a native Spanish living in Spain Zespris 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Zespris, I did not intend to offend you. Wikipedia is a common project and I was not criticising you. Simply it was a call for someone else to help out. You have done more than enough just creating the original article. Saludos, Asterion 21:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for info

Hola Asterion, veo que aquí también habéis tenido problemas con el inefable yanito... Él solito se descalifica.

Estoy buscando fuentes sobre Gibraltar y, aunque no tengo muchos libros en casa, me gustaría saber la fuente de tu afirmación "Of the 1,200 registered families, only 22 were allowed to stay". Es para incluirlo en el artículo en español. Gracias y un saludo --Ecemaml 06:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Galicia

Recently WikiProject Galicia has been created. Perhaps you are interested in joining us to help improving Galicia articles in English Wikipedia. --Stoni^(talk) 14:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Adiu!

Ai vist que parlas occitan! Avem besonh d'ajuda e de contribucions per far avançar lo projècte en lenga d'òc... Ès benvengut se vols participar! :)

A lèu! [[1]]

Cedric31

Catalan Countries

You seem to have removed on Feb. 25 the subheading about the validity and views about the term. I know (i was one of the contributors, see the talk page) that it was far from perfect. The term and their implications are highly controversial, and we wanted thru this heading to put a balanced account of the different views about it. Wikipedia should be NPOV, and that includes to show in cases like this the different facets of the problem, so I think it should be restored (and if possible with a higher quality redaction. Waiting for your comments --Wllacer 08:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Chipriota

• Saludos. No creo que el nacional-bolchevismo deba estar en el listado de ultraizquierda, más bien junto con los fascistas. Pero es una batalla que doy por perdida. No se si eres turco-chipriota o greco-chipriota, la verdad es que me da igual.--83.165.70.235 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Creo que eres de Creta con lo cual he metido la gamba. Sorry.--83.165.70.235 22:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Gracias por el apoyo. Estoy de acuerdo contigo. No soy chipiotra. El alias que vengo usando viene de un cuento de Borges. Saludos -- Asterion 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not 3RR

It was not within 24 hours. So, it is not 3RR. He is an admin, he knows the rules. --KimvdLinde 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Asterion 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC) You are welcome. --KimvdLinde 00:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR reports

You need to give the diffs (like this: [2]), not links to the page. I can, in any case, only see three reverts. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to check — are you happy now about how to provide the diffs? (I did try to give a link to a relevant Help page, but I couldn't find one; if I do, I'll come back and add it.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Lib Dem

Hi. Please do not reintroduce copyrighted images into these templates. The only justification Wikipedia has for keeping them on its system is fair use, and fair use will not apply in any circumstance this image is used. This is to prevent the Wikimedia Foundation from liability for infringing copyrights. Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Party logos can be used freely in Wikipedia. You should do your homeworks before making pointless accusations Asterion 21:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are very wrong. Our fair use policy is *very* strict, rightly and necessarily so. Don't abuse it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your confusion. Yes, the images are allowed in the article namespace (e.g. for Labour Party (UK)), but nowhere else. This is to make sure we fit in with the fair use criteria. Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam's right, as you'll see in our fair use policy and please remember our no personal attacks and civility policies. Thank you. Chick Bowen 22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not me who needs reminding about civility and I did not personally attacked anyone, my friend. I was accused of uploading copyrighted images. Well, I did not upload the LibDem logo, I simply linked to the already uploaded file, as present in the article. As far as Wikipedia goes, logos can benefit from Fair Use as long as it does not imply that Wikipedia is endorsed by the company or organisation depicted by such logo. This is clearly not the case. The insertion of the logos does not imply recognition or endorsement by Wikipedia or viceversa. It is common sense. Asterion 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that, no, that's not Wikipedia's fair use policy. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use. Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that keeping "fair use" images in your userspace is also against Wikipedia policy. Please remove them as soon as possible. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for ignoring Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Civility

Dear Asterion: You have been blocked for 24 hours, due to your repeated and persistent desire to ignore Wikipedia:Fair use and your unwillingness to discuss productively with those who have questioned your use of copyrighted images (for example, Sam Korn, whose most recent message you simply archived without replying to). In addition you have not shown the levels of civility that are expected from members of the editorial community on Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia:Civility. I ask that you please pay attention to Wikipedia:Fair use in the future, regardless of your views on what constitutes fair use in your opinion, and to also please be more civil to editors in the future. Please feel free to edit after the block expires. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not ignore anyone. I was falsely accused of uploading copyrighted images. I was simply using Wikipedia Commons images into a template, which is perfectly legit. I have no time to waste with feeble accusations from anyone, whether he is or not an administrator. Some people are more equal than others, I assume. Best wishes, Asterion 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

NicholasTurnbull is there a way to block Asterion from vandalizing Kosovo site as well? seems like he/she is one of those that interferes in articles that he/she has no clue about. regards,Ilir pz 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Refer to Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Ilir pz for details on this individual. Asterion 00:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Advice

You are entitled to archive your page as often you want, but editors who remove (especially adverse) comments as soon as they're added get a bad reputation, and tend to lose the trust and respect of other editors (see Wikipedia:User talk pages. That can make your time on Wikipedia much less pleasant. I usually wait until editing my page gets a "this page may be too long" notice. It's entirely up to you, but I thought that you should be aware of the possible consequences of your actions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mel. If my intention had been to remove everything I would not have archived it and placed a link to it then. I just got tired of know-it-all people waiting to stab someone else in the back. The Fair Use page is only a guideline and common sense should prevail. This is the whole point of Wikipedia. I just grew fatigued of their feebles accusations and bureaucratic mentality. I appreciate your advice. Kind regards, Asterion 21:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated all comments back from the archive. Any wikipedian interested on the issue should be able to revisit the event. I believe Nicholas Turnbull was ignoring process as my actions (Archiving my own user talk page and inserting a fair-use logo) did not amount to a reason to block me. He came from nowhere and did not even try to discuss at all (I was banned after I had quitted the discussion with Sam and gone to bed!). This is common sense. Asterion 01:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yugo / Zastava cars

Hi, Wikipedia does not need to respect Greek nationalist demands. I can go into more detail if you like, but I think we should use common sense. When was the last time you said "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian" out loud? It just isn't done. And yes, I am trying to push a point of view... that point of view is that we don't have to listen to nationalists on Wikipedia, we can come to our own conclusions. Not Serb nationalists, not Greek nationalists, not Croat nationalists, not Romanian, Bulgaria or English, French nationalists, none of them :)) - FrancisTyers 23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot see the point of starting an edit war. I stick to the internationally accepted view (UN, European Union and even NATO). Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a NPOV term, while Macedonia or Rep. of Macedonia is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an "anti-nationalist platform". The article is about cars, nothing else. There is no need to add wood to the fire. I respect your opinion but cannot agree with it. Regards, Asterion 00:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't mislabel the UN and the EU as the internationally accepted view. The UN and the EU have to the listen to nationalists whining on and they make a lot of mistakes... and I'm sure there are Macedonian nationalists who make just as boring listening. Wikipedia doesn't. The name of the article is Republic of Macedonia and that is what we should use. By disagreeing you are assuming a Greek nationalist point of view and that is no more acceptable. I'm sure you've already read it, but read Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Naming_issue. Wikipedia calls it the Republic of Macedonia, look for yourself, it isn't an anti-nationalist "platform" but neither is it a Greek-nationalist-platform. :) Don't make this page one of the only ones on Wikipedia not to deal with the naming dispute to mention this absurdity. - FrancisTyers 11:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Francis, the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was used by this country in its applications to join the UN and for the EU admission talks. It is not Greek namecalling. Besides, I am simply interested in writing about the car. I just would not like to see the article turned into an edit battlefield by third parties, with no real interest in the subject of the article. I will stay aside any further discussions on the country name. It is up to you all to agree on the terminology. Regards, Asterion 22:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not by choice. Ok, thanks, I'll change it and if anyone disagrees we can discuss it on the talk page :) - FrancisTyers 22:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That is OK with me. Cheers, Asterion 22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslav Reunification

Hello! What makes you think that Yugoslavia should be reunified? People there do not like such a thing.--Pjetër Bogdani III 02:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Many people actually do indeed. In an ideal world, it would be the most sensible thing to happen. Regards, Asterion 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Most people now prefer that, as they can the evils of nationalism and hatred; NOTHING will godd will ever come out of those "ideals". I believe that, once all 6-8 republics entre the EU, THE EU grants them full authority to reunite Yugoslavia.

Your poor understanding of politics

I suggest you pay attention to other editors' remarks, especially when these are more in the subject than you. You repeat all over again: 'and many high-ranked civil servants and army staff, unhappy with Milosevic's party turning away from Yugoslavism ideals. I removed this passage and you stubbornly re-added it. But I have already explained in the talk page that YUL was not an extremist party which readily took hardliners from SPS. It was just as nationalist as Socialist Party was. The thing is that Milosevic just wanted to show his own party more moderate than it really was and that's why a new place was necessary for some hard-line nationalists. Neiher were there any strategical political disagreements between Milosevic (SPS) and his wife (YUL) as it concludes from your edits.

Most of my information is taken there [^ [3]], a link that you so stubbornly censor from the page.

This coincided with Milosevic's party turn to socialdemocracy, at the time of its failed application to join the Socialist International. -- this passage makes little sense, as only two (out of 50? 100?) SI members recognised serb socialists as soc dem. Your notion is completely irrelevant.According to Free Serbia, 'all others (over 160 parties from over 130 countries) voted against. With this decision, unusually (for SI) hard and unpleasant letter was sent to SPS, in which it is accused for ethnic nationalism, creating wars and dissolution of former Yugoslavia and suffering of people. Since then SPS has built relations only with obscure communist parties around the world.'

It was considered a all-Yugoslavia party, as opposed to Slobodan Milošević's Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), which had only a Serbian base (the SPS did not run in Montenegro, the Socialist People's Party of Montenegro or SNP, was its partner in the Federal Assembly). This paragraph shows your ignorance of the matter: according to my source, in Montenegro YUL got just a few thousand ballots [in 1996/7 election] (less than there were signs on their candidates' lists). Bulatovic (as President, later appointed to be Prime Minister of Yugoslavia by Slobodan Milošević after losing Montenegrin pres el) and Djukanovic (as Prime Minister) collaborated closely with Milosevic, and their Democratic_Party_of_Socialists_of_Montenegro was little more than regional branch of SSP. --Constanz - Talk 08:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You have based the whole article and lifted several sentences from the so-called Free Serbia website, which is not neutral and is factually inaccurate in many respects. I did not remove the link to that website, as you insist on saying, I simply removed your duplicated insertion, as the link was already there and there is no point in using footnotes for such a short article (refer to wikipedia guidelines if you are still unsure). Reading your user page, it is clear you are not neutral: Just because you "oppose all forms of marxism", it does not mean you can use Wikipedia for your very own anti-marxist version of things.

Your understanding of Serbian and Yugoslav politics is -to say the less- very poor. Not only you confuse Đukanović's DPS with Milošević's allies in Montenegro (the Socialist People's Party or SNP) but continuosly confuse the meaning of the term yugoslavism with extremism or extreme nationalism, when it clearly refer to the opposite.

JUL received over 20% of the votes in the first round of the 1996 elections. Because the nature of the FRY electoral system and the outcome of the second (and third round) [4], the results were not in proportion. "All-Yugoslavia" means it decided to run in both republics, as opposed to the Serbian Socialist Party, which only ran in Serbia for obvious reasons.

I read with interest your personal views on JUL being created as a vehicle to portray SPS as middleground too. However, please note that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Despite all this, I am glad that you created the article. You must understand this does not mean you own it.

Regards, Asterion 01:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD vote

As if you are not doing the same thing [5] --Dado 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai is an administrator. Not exactly the kind of born-yesterday "wikipidean" you have been canvassing. Regards, Asterion 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes I've been there now, thanks for the tip. I see we have alot of the same POV, which is great! BTW really big thanks for the Barnstar, it was really great to have some response for the contributions and the NVOP I (we) stand for :) Thanks, Litany (wrote this in case you diden't watch my page)

You're very welcome! Asterion 08:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hello there! How come you got so interested in the Yugoslavian politics? Gianni ita 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

Hi. Please do not edit Arbitration Committee proposed decision pages. As it reads at the top, Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page. Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. This is not completely obvious. Asterion 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No harm done. ;-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)