Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have fun around here and continue to make useful contributions. You can check the Wikipedia:Community Portal for tips and guidelines. As for the post you made in Votes for Deletion: if its the samething as in a site, it is probably a copyright violation and should be posted in Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. In this cases the articles is replaced by the copyvio boilerplate text you can find at the top of the reffered page. Thanks, Muriel 15:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


In Wikipedia:Language order poll, you wrote: "By order of alphabet, based on two letter code. Otherwise, how would we order languages which do not use a Latin alphabet?"
Allow me to explain why I don't agree. I do not believe that what type of letters the language uses, should matter. There is a natural way to sort a list of language names, and that is by order of language name. (If you want to sort a list of two letter codes, you would order them by the two letter code.) IMHO, the best ordering gives itself, since what the users see, is a list of language names, not two letter codes. And to answer your question: Language names written in letters which you can alphabetize, you just alphabetize. But all the languages written with other kinds of letters also have names in your language, and so can quite easily be alphabetized by those names.
At least that's how I see it.
--VerdLanco 21:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article LicensingEdit

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Hi Yekrats. I made a photo for your request on soap on Commons :-) Regards Malene 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Jesse MacbethEdit

just wanted to know what your evidence is that the macbeth video is a rightwing conspiracy? on informationclearinghouse.com this hasd been discussed and dismissed by most ofthe people there, including myself. It is completely probable that macbeth was a liar who had a lot to gain by posing as a combat vet, certainly just being the center of attention at rallies might have been enough of an incentive. it would be fair to say that after the video came out that the right wing blogsphere as had a field day jumping on this video and leaving threatening messages on macbeth myspace page, but it is pure conjecture that its production in the first place was a video designed to discredit the anti-war movement--taucetiman

thanksEdit

Hi Yekrats. I've already e-mailed you, but so there's a record of gold stars on your talk page, thanks for your help with the Jesse Macbeth article. Let's hope it stays neutral and well-sourced. Bugmuncher 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Esperanto Wikipedia: Policy re "krokodilado"?Edit

Hi. What's the policy about "krokodilado" on Esperanto Wikipedia? (E.g. http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador ) -- Writtenonsand 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mi ĝin ŝanĝis. Kial krokodili? --Orange Mike 14:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you've edited some Esperantist-related articles...Edit

The category Esperantists was deleted recently, and the deletion is up for review. In case you'd like to chime in, go here. --Orange Mike 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean ForgeEdit

On 2007-09-07 in the article Jan Fethke you changed Jean Forge is the pen name of Jan Fethke. to Jean Forge (1903-02-26 in Oppeln, Silesia – 1980-12-16), often using the pen name Jan Fethke.

I had always understood that "Jean Forge" was/is the pen name of Jan Fethke. I note also that http://wwwDOTsuite101DOTcom/article.cfm/esperanto/22841 states In the world of Esperanto, however, Jan Fethke is much better known by his pseudonym, Jean Forge,

I attempted to clarify this on 2007-03-26. Am I and this source in error? Bonvolu klarigi.

--Bill O'Ryan O'RyanW ( ) 16:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Now I also note that the cited sourse has bee "blacklisted! Why? This is disturbing! I can't imagine a motive for hiding the identity of Jean Forge.

Dankon. O'RyanW ( ) 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!Edit

Can i invite you to take a look at Twinkle? It's a great script for browsing wikipedia and i noticed that when you leave a message, you don't leave a signature, but Twinkle takes care of it... It works great on Firefox :)

It's a tiny script that gets added to your monobook.js (your special preferrences page). This is a direct link: your monobook.js. Remember that monobook.js is a higly visible template but it's locked to all regular users and anons except admins.

Thanks!

--Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Esperanto WikipediaEdit

Would it be possible for you to expand Esperanto Wikipedia article along the lines of your post here? That would be a very interesting information given the topic. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tèstaquêdra proposalEdit

Hello, maybe a bit late, I am coming to answer the request that you expressed in this paragraph about having a translation of what I wrote here in the italian village pump. I am not translating the comments, since it would take too long. As for my proposal of using Esperanto in the coordination group of small wikipedias, I intend it as a way to avoid discrimination between users accustomed to English, and those who are not (especially in dialectal wikipedias this is an issue). And then, because I do not like the idea of multilingual sites in English (as commons), I think you get the point. I do not really write or read Esperanto now, but I am finishing taking an on-line course on the subject, because I think it is important. -- Tèstaquêdra 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


As many of you will know, in many wikipedia versions there exist pages that are built out of data tables. For sake of clarity, I am thinking about municipalities, asteroids, substances, airports, and so on. The current way to manage these pages, which, from now on, I will refer to as "automatic", is not, in my opinion the best one. In some wikipedias (usually the "small" ones, but not only) this kind of pages are used in order to increase the figures, with the result that quality is degraded to pitiful levels. In other ones, where these pages are a more upstanding fraction of the whole lot, they sum up with the figures for "hand-made" pages, and make it difficult to evaluate the grow rate of the encyclopedia. I would like to make it clear from the beginning that I do not regard automatic pages as of little worth (all the contrary); but I believe that a "separate" management would improve the situation under all points of view. Here is a proposed solution that would tackle also another problem. (sorry, the statement in Italian here is idiomatic and nearly impossible to translate)

  1. Extend mediawiki with a full-fledged relational-data-base management. Since the mediawiki engine is already built on top of a database engine, unless I got it wrong, this should not be difficult. But now one should provide the php interface with the ability to query these tables and use query results to generate automatic pages. Data input, on the other hand, is not necessarily implemented through the mediawiki interface.
  2. Automatic pages do not exist in the same sense as the other ones. This pages are, indeed, automatically generated everytime the requested title does not correspond to an existing page, but appears in the data base. Robots physically creating the pages are then no more needed. If the title in the data base collides with the title of an existing page, (automatic) pages are created with an opportune title extension, which can be used in a disambiguation page (e.g., if Karl Marx is already existing, the engine can generate Karl Marx (asteroid).
  3. Automatic pages are not added to the figures of the encyclopedia, or, at least, they are counted separately. In this way, there ceases to exist any incentive for those who only want to fatten the article count.
  4. The data base is common to all wikipedias. For instance, once the tables with data about all italian municipalities are ready, it shouldn't be difficult to reuse them in a wikipedia in whatever language; it is sufficient that the local community takes up the task to translate the presentation framework. This assumes that the data base is managed a bit like the commons, obviously.
  5. Automatic pages can be embedded inside manual pages. For instance, an important municipality, like Rome, that contains a lot of "manual" text, should embed data from the municipality table through a template mechanism. The page is then counted normally as a manual page. In this case, automatic page generation is suppressed.

These are only a few, roughly described points, and surely need a lot of additional work to morph into actually implementable features. But the idea, in my opinion, is fundamentally right. Database engines do the work of database engines, information is exploitable in all wikipedias that care about using it, criticisms about "inflated figures" are avoided, and the overall wikipedia quality is improved. [...] Cheers -- Tèstaquêdra, 23:34, 11 set 2007 (CEST) --- (from it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Una_proposta_di_gestione_delle_pagine_generate_da_basi_di_dati).

ThanksEdit

Thanks for the talk page comment, I tend to wander over multiple projects (my matrix). Good to know your on Esperanto Wikipedia. If you need anything here, Let me know!--Hu12 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Magic 'secrets'Edit

Hi Yekrats. This is one of those things that comes up from time to time, and has led to a great deal of debate. Ultimately, a compromise was hammered out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic. Method descriptions which can be attributed to a suitable source may be included, in line with our usual content policies.

It was felt that it would do a disservice to our readers to force them to track down the contents of footnotes when the material (a concise description of the mechanics of the trick) could and should be included in our articles.

Incidentally, the use of 'spoiler' warnings is now deprecated (see Wikipedia:Spoiler), and the spoiler template message (Template:Spoiler) was deleted. If you run across an article which still has a spoiler warning in it, please remove the warning. To 'warn' the unsuspecting reader that the method is coming, I recommend placing the method description in its own section of the article (with an appropriate header, like == Method ==) somewhere towards the end. Anyone who doesn't find that sufficient protection from the 'secret' probably isn't going to be deterred by a spoiler template, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

1000 Articles on MetaEdit

I notice you were big on editing that awhile back. I'm trying to get some articles (Lincoln, Wright Bros, Jefferson, and Franklin) on the list. You think you could help me? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Esperanto WikipediaEdit

The C class rating was a few months ago, keep that in mind ;) I have seen some very good additions to the article, and I must say thank you for your contributions. Sadly, I am busy in real life right now, and I will get back on you with more details at a later date. Cheers! Leujohn (talk, stalk me?) 06:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Super Obama WorldEdit

Just to let you know, this article isn't really eligible for the proposed deletion process as it has previously been discussed at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Obama World). From Wikipedia:Proposed deletion: "Before nomination... Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it has... not been and is not being discussed at AfD.". Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Renominate for deletion in that context means start a new AfD discussion. Proposed deletion "is a process used for nominating pages for uncontroversial deletion" - deleting an article that has been kept by the consensus of the community is almost by definition controversial and makes it very likely that the proposed deletion notice will be removed or challenged. In addition as I stated above, articles that have been kept at AfD are specifically described as ineligible for proposed deletion by English Wikipedia policy - it is unlikely that the article will be deleted even if the tag remains in place for seven days, if it is it would be a mistake on the part of the deleting admin. If you want to contest the outcome of the original deletion discussion you should use deletion review, to renominate for deletion at AfD follow the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DeletionEdit

Looking over our discussions I am sorry if I have been less than clear at times, whilst I haven't edited much lately I used to edit Wikipedia quite a lot and forget how opaque some of the process and terminology can be to those not familiar with them. I thought I'd try to explain the basic deletion processes to you to make up for any confusion I may have caused:

There are three basic methods of deletion on Wikipedia they are:
  1. Speedy deletion: This is for things that there is a clearly established consensus to delete and so discussion is not required, reasons include copyright violation, blatant vandalism and test pages. Any admin can delete an article on site, without notice if it meets one of the specific speedy delete criteria. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.
  2. Proposed deletion, sometimes referred to as "prod", is for uncontroversial deletions. Once an article is tagged under this process any user (including the article's creator) can remove the tag. If the tag remains in place for seven days the article can be deleted but would be automatically restored on request by any user. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for more information.
  3. Articles for deletion, or AfD, is a discussion based process that takes place on a separate page from the article. A debate typically lasts seven days with the aim of establishing a consensus to keep or delete the article in question. If no consensus is established then the article is kept by default. For more information see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

An article that has been kept following an AfD discussion is not eligible for proposed deletion or speedy deletion (except in very specific circumstances) as they rely on a presumption that if discussed there would be a consensus to delete (speedy deletion) or that no one would object to the deletion (proposed deletion). If members of the community have already expressed a desire to keep the article this assumption has been shown to be invalid. A new AfD discussion can be started at any time for an article but if too soon after a previous nomination the outcome of the discussion is unlikely to change, people may object to deletion on the grounds that the article was kept following a recent discussion - normally a period of a few months is enough to allay these arguments.

Deletion review, or DRV, is a process for challenging a deletion or the outcome of an AfD discussion or speedy deletion, involving discussion among the community. It should be noted that a common maxim is "deletion review is not articles for deletion round two", meaning it is not for considering the merits of the article in question but whether the process was carried out in line with relevant Wikipedia policy and established community consensus. For more information see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

I hope this has helped to clarify things for you a bit, for a more detailed general overview of deletion on Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a ReviewerEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind translation request of emprouvement and translation into esperanto for Ludmilla Radchenkothank of true heart --Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Edit

Good evening Dear Scott,

I am writing to say hello first, beyond this to wish you a good weekend, that is prosperous and generous. I am writing to you because I saw that you're an excellent Esperanto, and I was wondering if you would be so kind as to improve the article about a Russian model and actress active in Italy, and in Anglo-Saxon world is a well known artist and pop art painter, as well as course in Italy.

what you ask is a simple arrangement of the article, Based on the Italian and the link that I'm going to show here, his new biography in English. what you ask is a good smattering of mixing and everything.

of course, your generosity and kindness will be rewarded well, you translate an article of your interest in Sicilian and various Italian dialects.

sure your answer and some help thank you in advance with my whole heart, I'm going to follow you on Twitter, also keep in contact. thanks and good to make it :)--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

LibraryThing-o en EsperantoEdit

Kara amiko! La tradukado de LibraryThing-o al Esperanto bone progresis. Dankegon al "Annix"! Vidu http://epo.librarything.com/zeitgeist/language/epo paĝon pri la ĝis nun plej ofte aldonitaj verkoj kaj aŭtoroj. Tamen necesas pligrandigi la bazon de la esperantlingvaj kunlaborantoj, de la esperantlingvaj libroemuloj. Bv. sekvi (provizorajn) klarigojn haveblajn ĉe http://epo.librarything.com/topic/134789 . Antaŭdankon! ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 20:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

Hello, Yekrats. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

Hello, Yekrats. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Games Magazine" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Games Magazine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Games Magazine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)