User talk:Marek69/Archive 8

Typo on "Now"

Could you throw me a few examples of the false positives on "now". I'd like to take a crack at fixing it. Shadowjams (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shadowjams, thank you for your message.

The main problem I came across with this one was when running spell-checks on Eastern-European town/city/village articles. A frequent word which triggered the spell-check was nowe (Polish/Slovak for 'new').

I know that foreign words create a problem with spell-checking and we can't fix every case, but this one seems to be occurring very frequently in the areas I've been working.

I wasn't sure how to exclude this particular case - is this possible just to exclude the word 'nowe'?

Thank you for taking an interest in this.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Right now it looks like this: find="\b(N|n)(?:ow[es]|wo)\b" replace="$1ow". If it's just "nowe" we could remove the e from the brackets. If catching "nowes" is important, but avoiding "nowe" is too, then this could work: find="\b(N|n)(?:owe?s|wo)\b".

As a side note, the (?: idiom seems to be common on AWB/T but I don't know why. It just designates a noncapturing group so you don't have to readjust the $1 numbering, which isn't an issue most places where it's used. Go figure.

Let me know if you think that might fix it. I'll test it later if I get the time. Shadowjams (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility, to actually catch misspellings of now as "nowe", would be to try to exclude sentences that have accented characters, things like "Ś", in them. That might knock down the false positives. We could also exclude the capitalized ones that use that one.

Doing the accent character avoidance is probably too verbose for AWB/T, and would tie up too much processor to be used widespread, but if you wanted to use it on your own Find/Replace patterns it might work. Making it could be a bit of a pain, so before I try to do one, let me know if you think that either of those mechanisms would avoid most of the false positives you've seen. Shadowjams (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast replies, Shadowjams.

I think that just removing 'nowe' would be of great benefit. I have no idea if 'nowes' is a frequent typo. There was obviously some reason for adding it to the list in the first place.

The word 'nowe' often appears in text on its own within English text, usually as part of a place or landmark name, rather than part of a line of foreign text.

I think just removing 'nowe' from the list would be the simplest solution.

If you are able to this, I would be very grateful.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

hello thanks for the welcome! Ceroman (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ceroman, you're very welcome. Happy Wiki-ing! -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the welcome... I do not usually edit anything, unless some minor sentences I find unclear, or some statements when I read them twice. But I was thinking about translating some articles over to the Spanish Wiki, which is sadly underdeveloped... However, I am not sure if I can keep the same sources, or if the sources must be in the language of the Wiki... I guess I will have to search the info! Leirus (talk)

About Nativity church

Hi. Im glad you translated (or created) the page about "Adormirea Maicii Domnului" church in Causeni...in english. The name of the church translated in english is Assumption of Mary, or something like that. Nativity church maybe in the case of Nasterea Domnului, but not this case. "Dedicated to jesus" is another mistake. So please correct this things. Best wishes. Dan.chent (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dan.chent, thank you for your message. Could you please show me which page you are referring to.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Marek. This is the page: Nativity Church, Căuşeni.Dan.chent (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Violating links

This link is to saojoaodepernambuco.com has changed and now has only a sponsored ads. Don know how edit since I dont see the editing page for Referências at http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goiana

I have reason to believe that some of the refernces at Wikipedia is abused by a network of websites, belong to one person.

An example: http://www.google.se/#hl=sv&source=hp&q=Brazilian+teams+may+play+at+several+championships+simultaneously.&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=&aq=f&oq=Brazilian+teams+may+play+at+several+championships+simultaneously.&fp=76b2f1f97b71ad7a

These two is very similar in content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_football_league_system http://www.natal-brazil.com/communities/football-brazil.html I checked natal-brazil.com and some of the content is copied from other wbesites. The above link even had a url from Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_Brazil (could not edit and remove)

The websites that are joined in a network and many of them has references in Wikipedia(Example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natal,_Rio_Grande_do_Norte) : viagemdeferias.com visitfortaleza.com aboutbrasilia.com natal-brazil.com aboutsaopaulo.com v-brazil.com joao-pessoa.com www.recifeguide.com

The content is not unique on some pages and filled with Google ads.

Another example: The text on recifeguide.com is not unique, I think the material is copied as well, compare "The History of Recife and Pernambuco is unique" in Google: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:-8-nWtmn3zEJ:www.diveglobal.com/explore_destinations/divertales/feb2006.asp+%22The+History+of+Recife+and+Pernambuco+is+unique%22&cd=3&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:wteQjgw0qhsJ:www.recifeguide.com/+%22The+History+of+Recife+and+Pernambuco+is+unique%22&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se

Regards

Sammyname Sammyname (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyname (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sammyname. Thank you for your message.

If these links you are referring to are not under the References section, then they're likely to be within the text of the article.

If you make a note of the number of the reference, then look where that same number shows up in the article.

i.e The article text will look like this.^[3]

References

1. Good Reference

2. Good Reference

3. Bad Reference

When you find the place the bad reference is in the text (e.g. the number 3 - it will probably have <ref> before it and </ref> after it) you will be able to remove it.

I hope this helps.

Please come back if you need more help.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First personal problems with IP editors

Salutings Marek69, for the second time a paragraph of mine has been deleted in the Leipzig#Sport section by an IP editor. Both times I reverted this and now I am wondering what to do the next time this happens. I already placed a section on the related talk page expressing my opinion. But I find it hard to communicate with editors who do not care for explaining their reasons. So what are my options? Thanks for Your time. Greetings Arrmaniac (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arrmaniac, in both these cases the whole paragraph was deleted without any discussion or explanation.

This type of edit can be treated as 'unexplained removal of cited content'

If it happens again you can simply revert using the above edit summary. Also you should leave a message on the IP editors talk page. If they give no explanation and repeat the same section blanking, then you can treat it as disruptive editing and use the appropriate warning. Usually this will do the trick.

Please let me know if you have any more problems with this.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reaction. I'll keep your advice in mind. Arrmaniac (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Carpe Diem

Hi there marek. How come my good faith edit was reverted by you? I'd certainly consider that including "Seize the Day (novel)" disambig would be just as relevant to the top of the main page of the Carpe Diem article just as relevant as the "Seize the Day (song)", if not more so.

I tried to add both the song and the novel to the top of Carpe Diem but was unable to get the formatting correct to include both, so I moved both to the disambig page, to be fair. It would seem either both should be included or neither. Please assist?! Thanks again. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted this version back to this version with the edit summary of Previous format was better.

This was for the simple reason that using the template {{Redirect|Seize the day}} is better formatting than manually writing ''"Seize the Day" redirects here. ''

This had nothing to do with whether "Seize the Day (novel)" is as relevant as "Seize the Day (song)".

I hope this answers your question

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. But since there are two "Seize the Day" works here (the song and the novel), how can Carpe Diem be formatted to either include both or neither on it's front page? Why should the song get top billing? (Actually, why should either get top billing? It's only a redirect, after all.) But if anything, I believe the song should take a backseat as the novel is unquestionably more notable. Please forgive my lack on knowledge about proper formatting; any advice you can give would help. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So. Any ideas? Perhaps removing the redirect altogether and simply leaving the disambig? If I don't hear back on your thoughts in the next few days that is the action I will assume to be best. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already removed the {{Redirect}} template. It seems unnecessary to me. If you disagree you may replace it with both song and novel if you wish. I'm not particularly fussed on this one.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to restore them both to the page, if only because the redirect is to "Carpe Diem" and the song and the novel are both titled "Seize the Day"...wouldn't want anybody to miss either. Thanks again for being willing to see this POV. You're awesome. :o) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No Problem -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello!!

Thank you for your welcome note! I hope my contributions are okay for you ;-).

Greetings from Hamburg, Germany ExcelsiorHH ExcelsiorHH (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi ExcelsiorHH, thank you for your message. I hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes enjoy it far too much and forget everything else around me... ExcelsiorHH (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:-) OK just don't enjoy it too much, too often then. Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ze'ev Tzahor Auschwitz lie

[[1]] Potrzebuje poparcia Cautious (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Well, considering I'm about three times as long here than you, I guess I should be the one to welcome you as newbie ... ;-) -Caballito (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you for the welcome then, Caballito :-) Cheers! -- the newbie ^talk 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm very sorry it took me so long :-) The long time rookie -Caballito (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for welcome ! I make in the majority a translation from English and Turkish Wikipedia to Polish Wikipedia and it is my main target now. I am in Ankara currently, so if you some suggestion for help in developing Wikipedia connected with this place give me cue, please. You can see more information about me on my polish account - [Mcdrwal in polish]
Best regrades, Mcdrwal (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial capital in piped links

(This text replaces what I originally wrote, which was probably not correct)

Re your edit to European Union on 3 Feb and others: is there any reason that I don't know for explicitly replacing initial capitals in piped links with lower case? I had thought that this caused an unnecessary redirection, but on checking it seems that the case of the first letter (only) is ignored and does not cause any overhead. My general practice is to use the title of an article exactly in the first part of the pipe (specifically, with initial capital e.g.
"... an [[Autonomous area|autonomous province]] ", not
"... is an [[autonomous area|autonomous province]] ". Is there any general recommendation you know of, or are they equally acceptable? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pol098, thank you for your message.

You are probably right, these piped links should remain with first letter in uppercase. That seems logical to me.

But if, as you say, the case of the first letter (only) is ignored, it would then seem that it makes no difference at all(?)

Regarding my edits, this change happens automatically when making other changes when using some of Dispenser's tools, such as Dab solver, Checklinks & Reflinks.

I was going to ask user Dispenser for the reasoning behind this, but found that someone already had asked this question (in a manner)

Personally, it makes little difference to me, I just happen to use Dispenser's tools quite frequently as I find them useful and these changes come with the package.

I hope this answers your question :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You say "I hope this answers your question": to be pedantic, not quite; I would take the attitude that the change of case is incorrect, and it's up to you not to use a tool that actually introduces error into the articles you edit. Anyway, if I repair your car and the wheels fall off, I now know that you will be satisfied if I say that my nut tightener actually tightens nuts to the standard its manufacturer intended, nothing to do with me.

I've left a comment to Dispenser; the existing discussion on case changing was perhaps debatable, this one is clearcut. Very confusing; the last time I reported incorrect changes due to the use of a template I was told that these changes were down to the user, not the template! (Obviously that was true, and this case is different; just confusing.) Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pol098, thank you for your message. Don't worry, I don't think you were being pedantic, you're just trying to get your message across.

Please excuse my confusion, I didn't realise that these edits were wrong as such, and would be introducing errors into the edited articles. I thought what you were saying above was that the first letter's case would be ignored anyway, and it wouldn't matter.

Anyhow, I won't argue the point as I strongly suspect you are correct in what you are saying (i.e that there is no point in changing the case needlessly) so I will now be completely suspending my use of Dispenser's tools until this matter is clarified.

I thank you for bringing this to my attention, as it was never my intention to deliberately introduce errors into the encyclopaedia.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response again. Like most things in Wikipedia it's probably largely a matter of opinion; my opinion is that the "correct" way to do things is to pipe the title of an article exactly (i.e, with leading capital), and that anything else is, strictly speaking, incorrect. When I formed this opinion I thought that this would be more efficient than starting with a lower-case letter, but I think I was wrong on that issue. So my opinion is that lower-case is incorrect, but that it does not actually cause inefficiency. I've never heard of anyone saying that the initial letter in a piped quote should be lower-case (but I haven't looked...), so I don't think there's any controversy here. This is purely a matter of how it looks, apparently with no impact on performance. This is pretty pedantic, but I don't mind being pedantic here - if it's appropriate to be pedantic anywhere, an encylopaedia is the place! Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In case you or anyone is interested: I wrote about this on the Talk page of Dispenser, who made Reflist and other tools; his position is that removal of initial capitals is by design and will stay. At the time of writing there's one additional comment by someone who agrees with me and asks if there is a guideline covering this issue. Pol098 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the update Pol098.

I would just like to clarify some of my previous comments.

I said this change happens automatically when making other changes when using some of Dispenser's tools.

In fact the changes only happen automatically when using Reflinks. With the other tools Dab solver & Checklinks, you have a checkbox you can tick to 'apply common fixes' or an option to run reflinks.py, in both cases optional.

I will wait and see the results of the discussion before I return to using Reflinks, in order to avoid upsetting any other editors

Thank you for your comments on this subject.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Brazil, Introduction

Hi Marek69,

Just a brief note. The correct translation of "Republica Federativa do Brasil" in English is "Federal Republic of Brazil" not "Federative Republic of Brazil." There is no such word as "federative" in English (see: Webster's Dictionary of the American Language or any other English dictionary) and Larousse, Concise Dictionary of English/Portugese, p. 171 cites "federativa" as "federalist." The best translation to conform to good English usage and to render the correct meaning of the Portugese is "Federal Republic of Brazil." It is a good idea to start the article on Brazil with the correct name of the country. Please correct. (And yes, I speak Portugese and my wife is Brazilian and agrees with this point.) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrisles (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Harrisles, I have found many instances in different dictionaries of the word 'Federative' being in the dictionary.

Here are the first three instances I found: [2], [3] and [4]

The text on the Brazil article referring to Federative Republic of Brazil is referenced to The Brazilian Government official website which clearly also says Federative.

Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a long time since we've talked, but i need to ask a q.

Hi Marek. I need to contact you for something. I was wondering, can info from wikitravel be copy-pasted? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Theologia, When you contribute to Wikipedia, you irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Techncially, under these licences you shouldn't copy-paste large sections of one Wikipedia article into another as it contravenes the rules on Attribution, i.e. the section you've copied is likely to have a different set of authors, to the article your pasting into. So you shouldn't copy-paste within Wikipedia, you should treat the text like any other copyrighted text and paraphrase it.

Wikitravel is not technically part of Wikipedia, it uses similar CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensing and may be interpreted differently.

In practice, it would be best should treat Wikitravel like any other external site; you could probably get away with copy-pasting one or two lines maximum (to be safe), but it would still be a good idea to put this text into your own words.

I hope this answers your question.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So, what would happen if you just copypasted huge chunks? Would you be accused of copyright infrangment. What if you copy large chunks but change the wording slightly i.e.

On wikitravel it says: "Prague is a beautiful city with many sights and has a large medieval area"

you then copy it, and say: "Prague is an attractive metropolis with many sights and has a great central area dating from the middle ages"

reply--Theologiae (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The one line you quote, would probably be acceptable, if you just used that line of text or maybe one more.

If you say took a whole paragraph, say 10 lines and just changed the odd word using a thesaurus or similar method, it would not be acceptable. You would have to re-write the paragraph (or the parts you wish to use) in your own words.

The exception, of course would be public domain or copyright free texts, which are allowed (but it is still not a good idea to copy paste these either).

For more information you could look at these articles:

Copyright

Wikipedia:Copyrights

Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ

Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements

I hope this helps Marek.69 ^talk 22:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oxford flag size

Bit puzzled by this edit ... flag size, if not blank, should be an integer followed by the letters "px" - the default is 100px. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'm a bit puzzled as well. Someone has (incorrectly) added 7 FT here, which AWB has taken for 7 ft and applied the convert template to show the corresponding length in metres. The edit would have been correct if it hadn't been in the wrong place! I should have noticed it at the time.

Anyway, I'm sorry it was a mistake. Thanks for fixing it and letting me know, Redrose64 :-) Marek.69 ^talk 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

hello

hi Marek i just read on Wikipedia about Cyprus signing joining the schengen zone on the 26 march 2010.i will be much grateful if you let me on your source of information.thanks i await your reply.thanks sinbad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinbadgh (talk • contribs) 13:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sinbadgh, thank you for your message. I've looked through the Schengen Area article and there doesn't appear to be one.

I've also done a quick Google on it, and can only find references in the negative, ie Cyprus will not be integrated into the Schengen Area until at least March 2010.

I'll keep looking and let you know when I find something.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello! And thank You for welcomming me into the Wiki-world.

// Mr Per Sanderford, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringence (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Per, thank you for your message. I hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia.

Please let me know if there is anything I can help you with.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

a matter of license for text I wrote

Hi On the page about Seydisfjordur is a text tha I wrote and did ad to the wikipedia. I also gave the east.is a permission to use the text. So my question is how do I prove to you that I'm the author of the text? Adalheidur Borgthorsdottir id, number 010758-6619 Ferdamenning (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Adalheidur, thank you for your message.

Only text that is licensed compatibly with the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or in the public domain can be freely copied onto Wikipedia. (If copyright of the previously published text belongs exclusively to you, it must also be licensed under Gnu Free Documentation License.)

Basically you need to release the text on your website into the public domain or under compatable licenses to Wikipedia, i.e. Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) (you can find more info from CreativeCommons.Org) and Gnu Free Documentation License. (Gnu.Org)

You need to state this on your website. When you have done so, you can copy over text.

You may find the following article helpful; I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?

The other option you have is to rewrite the text completely, before adding. (Thus avoiding any copyright issues)

In my opinion it would be better to change the text somewhat, before adding it to Wikipedia, either way.

I hope this helps. Please come back to me if you require any further assistance.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

Thanks for the welcome. I hope I did the right thing. I'm fairly sure the Parthenon was not built by midgets. A.M. Winship (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi A.M. Winship, thank you for your message. Hmmm...are you sure? I was sure it was.

No, sorry, I was thinking about Stonehenge. You're right.

Cheers! -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, you did do the right thing. :-) Marek.69 ^talk

Welcome response

Thanks for the welcome, Mark. I already have an account, but wikipedia seems to have some trouble in keeping me logged in -- and also asks me to creat another account everytime I try and check other languages, which annoys me, so I just don't log that often.

Still, thank you.187.14.22.127 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Column with too few references

Its a bit silly to have [5] to have colwidth=30 with less than 8 references. — Dispenser 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Dispenser. It's probably not increase much from 8 either. I've already reverted my edit. :-)

Cheers! -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering your using AWB you can setup a regex condition like: If contains: (</ref>.*?){8,} — Dispenser 16:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I could set that up, if I knew a little more about coding (or knew someone who did)...

At the moment I have set up a simple find/replace with the 'Replace Special' feature

i.ei search for: {{reflist}},{{reflist|2}},{{Reflist}} or {{Reflist|2}}

and replace with: {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

OK I see now, I have to add (</ref>.*?){8,} into the If Contains box, sorry it was too obvious!

Thanks for your help, Dispenser :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize, New Section and GA

Hey Marek! First of all, good job on the Nobel Prize! It's a good article now, much thanks to you. However, I would like to talk about the new part you made in the "Emphasis on ..." section. As much as this is an interesting fact about Einstein which not many know I don't really understand why it is there? I don't see the connection between it and the "Emphasis..." thingie. Please explain :)

BR --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Esuzu, thank you for your message. Good news about the Nobel Prize GA

I wasn't sure which section to put this info in, whether to start a new section, subsection or otherwise

I eventually settled on the '...discoveries over inventions' section, which seemed most appropriate.

My reasoning: Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which he devised in 1905, can be effectively treated as an 'unproven invention'

It wasn't until he made the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect (which proved the Theory) that he was then awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921.

I think this information is important enough to be included in this article

It's just the wording or grammar (or something) in this new paragraph is not yet 100% right. I'm not sure if I've explained it all that well. Please feel free to change/improve it.

Do you think this info should possibly go under another heading? (I'm not sure)

Regards Marek.69 ^talk 17:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I will copy this over to the article's talk page for wider discussion. -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Answering on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also!

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Esuzu, hereby give you, Marek69 a barnstar for your hard work on the Nobel Prize article!

--Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Esuzu! :-D Marek.69 ^talk 18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Update: Hey again Marek! I've been fixing up Nobel Prize now to make it ready for FA nomination again, there's just some image issues left that are left (the section you started looks very good now imo). Hopefully they might be done next week or so and then it is FA nomination again! If you have time to help when under the nomination I'd be grateful :) I'll leave a new message before I nominate it. Cheers --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll probably nominate the article tomorrow or the day after if everything goes as planned. If you have time/want please help sorting out problems at FA or perhaps adding support :) --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

re: Welcome

Hi, thanks for welcoming me, I hope that I can be a useful wikipedian. I'm looking forward to this. (Alexhobbit (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)).

Hi Alexhobbit, I'm sure you will be a useful Wikipedian.

Kind Regards & Happy Wiki-ing!  :-) Marek.69 ^talk 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

AIV report

I'm guessing you didn't mean to report Special:Contributions/76.214.195.253, as they haven't edited since they're last block :). I've blocked the user who the diffs you provided were by (Special:Contributions/70.166.203.30), hope that's what you wanted. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kingpin, I was in hurry to get rid of this persistent vandal. IP Special:Contributions/76.214.195.253's details were already in the template from last time, when I copied it over. Cheers for noticing and sorting it out :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding Notes sections under References

On a number of articles about Swiss Municipalities, you've been adding a "Notes" Sub-Section Header under the "References" Section Header with AWB. Here's a diff if what I'm saying is unclear [6]. There's only the reflist template below the header, so I'm not sure why Notes is being added. Is this something new, or just some thing that you like? Is there a reason to be making these edits? Tobyc75 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tobyc75, thank you for your message. I'm sorry for the delay in reply, but I've been away for a few days, with no reliable internet access.

In answer to your question, I don't think the 'notes' subsection is anything new or particularly special. There are many different formats around, I just picked one and copied it. For example see the Nobel Prize article.

This has a format of:

==References==

===Bibliography===

* {{cite book #1}}

* {{cite book #2}}

===Notes===

{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

Although, looking at the example you gave above, Arni, Berne, on reflection, I'm not sure if this format is entirely necessary for an article of this (small) size, so I've restored it back. (I will have to adjust my AWB settings, I think). As I have said, there seem to be many different formats for this section, essentially doing the same thing. The reasoning behind my edits was primarily standardisation in this area.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Welcome

Hallo, thanks for the warm welcome, I hope I can contribute. I'm looking forward to this. Amnestyman (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome Amnestyman. I hope you enjoy all your time here on Wikipedia. :-) Marek.69 ^talk 16:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A warning I received. JEDI

Hello, I was digging around in Wikipedia a few minutes ago, when I came across a warning from you dated Oct. 2009 as follows:

October 2009

Welcome to  Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive  contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as  the one you made to Oslo, did not appear to be constructive and has been  reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to  make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing  constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Marek69 talk 20:48, 14  October 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

First of all, I have no idea what you are talking about, I never looked up Oslo let alone made an edit. I realize the IP address is what you are basing your warning on but... I can get a new IP address as many as 20 times a week due to AT&Ts crap DSL "service" here, if it can happen to me, I imagine it happens to many people! Sending a warning to an IP address and it being there since Oct is a bit of an overkill as this means anyone and anyone who receives this IP address is also going to receive the warning. As active as you appear to be in Wikipedia I would think this is not the first time this has come to your attention. The system as it is can cause more than an irritated person such as myself. Let's say for example that I am a regular contributer but do not want to be a registered user (you can pick your own reason for a person not wanting an actual account)then my IP address changes to one attached with a plethora of warnings for being rude lewd and crude in the edits and posts made to Wikipedia... You can see where I'm going with this?

Surely there must be a better method of keeping track of the true offender and not just assigning it to an IP Address that can be picked up by anyone of tens of thousands of AT&T customers?? At the very least you need to address the issue of having these warning expire when a new person receives the IP Address? I know for a fact there is a way to do this as I was a moderator for an RC Truck Enthusiast Forum for 6 years and we did this. (I don't know how but the owner of the site was most adamant that the new "owner" of an IP Address not be saddled with the sins of the previous "owner" of the IP Address).

I just moved to this area and this is another way I know this warning was not aimed at me, but as far as it being an "irrelevant" issue, I disagree completely, it is your responsibility to not be giving MY IP Address any type of warning that does not belong to me.

My first visit to Wikipedia should not be tainted with a warning to someone who had this IP Address 5 months ago. (by the way, some more advice if you are up to it, your warning should warn of nonconstructive not unconstructive edits, unconstructive is not a word)

I'll check back here for your thoughts on this issue (hopefully I can search for the Subject/headline? thus the JEDI)as by morning I will have lost this IP address and be assigned a new one... Very irritating as my Firewall has to be re-set to my new IP Address EVERYDAY! But with my luck, I will be stuck with this one... My point in writing to you!

75.17.193.129 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)NEW IP ADDRESS GUY

Some IP addresses change all the time, some remain constant for years. If you take over an IP address that has previously been used for vandalism then you are liable to receive messages for the previous user of that IP address - if you don't like that I suggest you create an account. As for changing the rules to require warnings to be removed after a week to ten days, I think that would be unlikely to get consensus unless someone came up with a way to identify when an IP had changed hands. Current policy on removing user warnings is "Old warnings may be archived into page history when they are no longer useful. Give consideration to the IP's contribution history when deciding how long to leave warnings visible. Always note the archiving of old warnings, but be sure to remember that any editor—including anonymous IPs—may remove messages at will from their own talk page." So you are free to delete warnings from IP pages that you take over. But I don't see that Marek69 is doing anything wrong in the way he warned the previous users of your IP addresses for the vandalism that they did. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message. I'm sorry for the delay in reply, but I've been away for a few days. I am also sorry for the strange replies (with the exception of WereSpielChequers) you were given. It appears that some editors took advantage of my absence to post various points of view. The whole section seems to have been copied over to Wikipedia:ANI and is now closed and archived here, together with some replies/comments from Wikipedia's administrators.

I'm not sure if there is much more I can add to what has already been said. You mention that you know of a method of having warning message expire when a new person receives the IP Address, through your experience on another site. Perhaps you could put this suggestion forward. I'm not sure who would deal with this. However, if you post you message at the Wikipedia:Help desk, somebody there may be able to direct you further.

If in the future you find messages which are not meant for you, please ignore them. According to Wikipedia's policies, you are allowed to delete them if you like.(I've already removed the one for Oslo you refer to) The alternative, which would avoid this problem, is to create an account. You may have a preference against doing this, but an account has many benefits and is actually more anonymous than editing as an 'anonymous IP'. With an account you can reveal nothing about yourself if you wish. An IP address (even a dynamic IP) can reveal more information about you than you would like.(i.e country, possibly town, name of ISP or employer) I would encourage you to consider it, but at the end of the day it's your choice. :-)

I wish you the best of luck. Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Marek69. I'm in a situation of trouble...people telling me that I've broken copyright (even copying withing wikipedia). I just need to get some things straight!

• Firstly what do you have to do to attribute (I read the page, but it gave me wikipedia creep; please simplify it)?
• What do you do if you've done edits way in the past in which you've copied from other wiki articles without attribution (I only discovered it relatively recently)?
• Can you copy and paste info from other articles that you've written yourself?

Please make this clear to me. I've been blocked in the past for a misunderstanding, and I don't want to get blocked again!

Please reply as soon as possible. I need to go soon, and I hope to have a reply soon. Please reply...--Theologiae (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This message was removed twice by the IPs in the above discussion, and readded twice by me. Just thought I would point that out, in case you didn't see his original post and thought I had made it up myself. -38.116.200.85 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As a matter of fact, I was shocked when I saw that a person (who wasn't me) was writing under my name. For a moment, I felt someone had hacked into my account, but that's a relief! Anyway, I've already asked the same question to someone else, so Marek69 needen't bother reply.--Theologiae (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Theologiae, I'm sorry for not replying immediately, but I've been away for a few days, with no reliable internet access. :-(

I see that user Ironholds was able to successfully help you with your query.

I hope you have resolved your problem and that all is well now. Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cookies

Thank your bot for the cookies.  ;)--Dr Lean (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Dr Lean. Happy Wiki-ing -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Einstein

Hello again Marek. I see you have been away from Wikipedia for a few days so you may not be aware that I sought help on the Nobel Prize article regarding the sentence you added about the photoelectric effect proving relativity. There are still no reliable sources that contradict Wilhelm directly, but the general consensus from other editors so far appears to be that Wilhelm was mistaken. Since you added that sentence and are much more experienced at Wikipediaing than me I thought you might like to comment or give some advice as to the best course to take. Hope I haven't stood on your toes, your other efforts have improved the article greatly. AIRcorn (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn, thank you for updating me with recent developments on the article. I've had a quick read through the recent discussion. Like yourself, I also feel that The Theory of Relativity is a bit above my head as well. Finding someone more knowledgeable on the subject was exactly the correct thing to do.

As there seems to be a question mark over Peter Wilhelm's quotation, I've simply removed that whole line about proof of theory. I believe the rest of the paragraph remains unchallenged.

I would welcome anyone who wishes to improve/rewrite this info if they have additional info/sources. If you feel you can improve on it please go ahead and do so, you won't be stepping on my toes.

After all isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?  :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I don't see anything wrong with what the paragraph says now. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cathedral

That was very sweet of you to leave a welcome message to a new editor who dropped by and made two unnecessary deletions.

The editor left a summary justifying both the removals.

However, both of the removals smack of an ultra Low-Church anti-Catholic attitude. In the few regions in the Anglican Communion where this sort of mindset exists there is a high intolerance to many aspects of traditional church/cathedral practice, liturgy, vestments etc as being "Catholic" with a capital "C". Hence the removal of the pictures of the procession and the robed and mitred bishop, and the implication that they were "unnecessary" and "inappropriate". I don't think that a minority attitude ought to dictate the removal of pictures that show common practice almost everywhere that cathedrals exist. Amandajm (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amandajm, thank you for your message. I did leave a welcome message for new IP 118.90.121.17. I often welcome new users to Wikipedia. I believe the welcome message is a good method of introducing new editors to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, such as Manual of Style, etc.

The fact that I welcome a new editor does not necessarily mean that I endorse all, or any, of their edits. At the time of welcoming IP editor 118.90.121.17 had already made 10 edits.

If I had noticed that a new user’s edits were clear vandalism, then I would have reverted and left an appropriate warning message, rather than a welcome. In this case I saw no obvious vandalism.

You may notice that this user got a cut down version of the standard IP welcome, which says ‘Thank you for your contributions’, but leaves out the following part which says ‘such as the one you made to Kremlin’ or ‘particularly what you did for the Cathedral article’. This is deliberate, in order to clarify that I am just welcoming the user and not endorsing their edits. In other situations I use different versions of the welcome message.

Unless someone is an obvious vandal, I believe they deserve a welcome to Wikipedia. It would be impractical to review all the new users edits before each welcome message (however, I do try to look at a few.) and impossible to predict the edits they make after.

I also believe it would be unfair (and a little bitey) for me to analyse their edits and sit in judgement upon them with my opinion of whether their edits are good or not, before I decide whether they deserve a welcome message. This is the case with the example you put forward on Cathedral, I simply welcome the editor (neutrally) and leave it up to editors like yourself who are more familiar with the article (and knowledgeable on the subject) to make an informed decision on the merits of the edit.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Marek. I don't think that the message could have been classed as "vandalism". Amandajm (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amandajm, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you please clarify?

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You commented that unless a new editors edit was obviously vandalism, then they deserved a welcome. I was agreeing with you. Amandajm (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I understand now, Amandajm. Thanks and Best Regards :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marek69

Thanks for the welcome!

I have been editing Wikipedia (very occasionally) on and off for a few years, but I anticipate becoming more active with this wonderful resource as I get less intimidated.

It seems the system loses trace of my account if I do not use it for 30 days or so, then I have to re-sign-in. Is there a way around that?

Didier wkpd (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Didier wkpd, thank you for your message.

When you say 'the system loses trace', do you mean that Wikipedia loses your account, or that your computer loses your username and password, and logs you out?

If it is the latter, this is a Wikipedia security feature, it is just a case of logging in again.

If it is Wikipedia that is losing your account, then I'm not sure what the reason would be. You might find someone who could give you an answer at the Wikipedia:Help desk.

Please let me know how you get on.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks from me as well. By the way, check out this user, 68.202.98.41 - it seems to mess up the categories by adding his content. I guess it's not appropriate, but I don’t want do admin’s work here. Perhaps you might? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Finn, thanks for the message. I'll take a look at the IP.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 13:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

help!

--Cub68134 (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cub68134, how can I help you? -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

this is all way too confusing for me; i edit a few things in French or German for spelling or the phonetics, if possible. to connect with you other than by e-mail is iffy since i don't have any idea if you will even get this message.....i have absolutely NO idea what in the heck i'm doing here......to read ALL the info on these pages to figure out what i need to do is enough to not return....i just tend to give up as it's like doing taxes.........Cub68134 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Dear Marek, Thanks for the warm welcome - and the cookies were great! Hawkins Brooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkins Brooks (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Hawkins Brooks, enjoy your time on Wikipedia and please let me know if I can help. -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

About Liquidambar orientalis

Hi Marek,

I have frequently been touring around in the region where Liquidambar orientalis is an endemic species, and I remember that already some 30 years ago I found the native name of this tree rather puzzling. In those days there was no Wikipedia, and I had almost forgotten about my initial surprise when I found the article – precisely in Wikipedia.

I have always been keen on etymologies in this part of the world for the simple reason that I know several Mediterranean languages. Through this knowledge I am able to sift linguistic material from the Inner Mediterranean somehow more critically than most people, and especially locals who would just “use folk-etymological procedures” when explaining unusual words. And the Turkish word for Liquidambar orientalis is unusual. The word günlük normally means “daily, that lasts one day, éphémère”. Obviously this word has nothing to do in the context of the plant, but this is how people associate because they can't come up with any other explanation. In fact, günlük also means what I mention in Wikipedia, but the interesting thing with this rare meaning of günlük is that its etymology is – or should probably be considered as – unknown. One of the two most authoritative Turkish etymological dictionaries (Türk dilinin etimolojik sözlüğü by Hasan Eren – the other one never arrived as far as the letter g before the author died) states indeed – and that is a very honest view – the origin of this word to be unknown. Now I see that Nişanyan, an Armenian inn keeper and hobby etymologist (with a lot of interesting etymological suggestions – you know Armenians from Istanbul are well known to be polyglots), in this dictionary on the web he suggests a Persian etymology. As I see it, this is pure guesswork, but I would have to look more closely into it and perhaps consult an expert on Persian that I know in Chicago.

Whatever the etymology is, the question is of great importance when considering the origin of this endemic species in Turkey. Obviously the plant is, as the article in Wikipedia indicates, a tertiary relict endemic taxon. As I see it, cracking the question of the etymology of günlük might shed light on how the tree ended up in this region.

I should add that there are Turkish words galore without an authoritative etymology, and the reason is of course that this country has seen quite a number of different ethnic groups coming and going through Anatolia for the last 4.000 years or so.

I would therefore be against your opinion that this is gullible only for those who enjoy the nitty-gritty of exotic etymological explanations. Instead I would invite whoever might come up with some better idea than Nişanyan – or perhaps even corroborate his version! – to mobilize. We live in an age of inter-disciplinary studies. The good thing about Wikipedia is that people having widely – if not wildly – different expertise, read things that they might never have read before. I am not a botanist, but I happen to be a hobby entomologist. And entomology is as far from my own expertise as one could possibly imagine.

Mutatis mutandis, nobody would say today that the notorious Etruscan origin of Roma, being the capital of Italy, is of no interest.

By the way, I am not very "productive" in Wikipedia for the time being as I am too busy with other things. Thanks for the cookies anyway!

Best greetings from

Hirpex (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hirpex, thank you for your message. I did indeed leave a 'Welcome' message on your talk page.

However, the second message, asking you to elaborate on your edits Liquidambar orientalis, was not left by me. This second message was left by user: Pembeana.

I believe the above reply was therefore intended for Pembeana (and not me) and have copied the message over to user:Pembeana's talk page so that they can respond to you directly.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Marek ! I got a bit mixed up here. Now I believe the question will be settled through the right channels. Hirpex (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No Problem. I hope you manage to sort everything out :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome!

Thanks! --SamantaGhezzi (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Samanta, enjoy your time on Wikipedia and let me know if you require any help. -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Make a new article

How coul you make a new article thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajt10 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ajt10, thank you for your message.

If you are thinking of starting a new article, please read Wikipedia:Starting an article. It contains a lot of useful information of where to start, and a lot of do's and dont's.

If you require any help, please come back to me.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Baird-Filliter

Information not accurate. This woman was appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench in 2007. See Who's Who in Canada for current biograghical information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.53 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can correct it, then please do so. Don't forget to include a citation/reference to where you sourced the information.

If you require any assistance please come back to me :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

aren't you listining to me? Y&R

are you a Y&R soap fan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.138.12 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I am, sorry. -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

hi

dear Marek thanks so much for your kind note. i am really new to wikipedia as a member, but am a frequent user. can i ask your help to fix a mistake? in editing the Hub Culture entry here on Wikipedia, i tried to add a reference link for wired, but it got messed up and generated an error. and i want to format the zeitgeist ranking on the same page, as well as fix the contents for the headings, but not sure how to do so. any tips? thanks! (Kaskaad (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

Hi Kaskaad, thank you for your message. I have fixed the problem on the Hub Culture article - don't worry, it's not easy when you start, but do not be discouraged.

I would recommend you take it slowly and practice your edits in a sandbox. (You could create User:Kaskaad/sandbox in your own userspace if you like and try out some editing there)

You could start by reading some Wikipedia guides, for example: Wikipedia:How to edit a page,Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Starting an article and Wikipedia:Manual of Style

For more information on how to create references, please read Wikipedia:References

If there is something else you need you can always come back to me (or, alternatively, there's always someone who can answer your questions on Wikipedia:Help desk.

Please let me know how you get on.

Kind Regards and Happy Wiki-ing -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Glasgow

Hi Marek, thanks for your message.

I feel your comment is probably justified, but unfair. Our website provides a service to tourists and locals alike, with information about restaurants, pictures, integrated Google maps, etc., but most importantly genuine reviews left by customers who have dined at the venues. I know Wikipedia's external links do not contribute to Google rankings because of the implementation of the 'no follow' tags, therefore we are not seeking undeserved advertising, but just enreaching articles about cities and their information completeness. Please let me know if you still feel I'm not contributing fairly to Wikipedia by providing this service. Thanks and regards, --Marino 09:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marino, thank you for your message. I understand what you are trying to do, but although it may seem unfair, it is clearly covered by Wikipedia's policies, i.e. Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which by its nature is neutral and does not allow advertising or promotion.

Your website is basically promoting the restaurants listed on it, as far as I can see.

There is also the issue that you are promoting your own website, which is covered Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

I'm sorry, but unfortunately I do not feel that a external link to your site would be appropriate or allowable under these policies.

I wish you the best of luck with your website and future endeavours.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unabhängiges FilmFest Osnabrück

Hi Marek69,

thanks for your notice on Unabhängiges FilmFest Osnabrück. Just a tiny problem: I couldn´t link Kim Longinotto (see her site at wikipedia) to the FilmFest. What´s wrong?

Best 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LS200 (talk • contribs)

Hi LS200, thank you for your message. If you want to make a link to the Kim Longinotto article, simply put double square brackets around the name, as in [[Kim Longinotto]], which will give you Kim Longinotto as a link.

Does this answer your question?

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why aren't you an admin? Can I nominate you? NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi NerdyScienceDude, thank you for your message.

I didn't realise that adminship was compulsory.

Joking apart, I thank you for thinking that I have what it takes to be an admin.

However, at this moment in time I do not feel I have sufficient experience in all the areas required to be a good admin.

I will be concentrating on gaining more experience in my weak areas, and when the time is right I would be very pleased to have you as a nominator. :-)

Kind Regards. -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just let me know when you're ready. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 02:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks again for the offer, NerdyScienceDude. :-) Marek.69 ^talk 02:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marek, if and when you decide to run I'd be more than happy to conominate you. ϢereSpielChequers 17:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi WereSpielChequers, thank you very much for your kind offer. I would be very pleased to have you on side.

Don't hold your breath though, as I mentioned above, I need to increase my experience in my weaker areas first, plus improve my article building skills.

I appreciate your offer and I will certainly let you know when I am ready to take the plunge :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)