User talk:Bazonka/Archive 13

See you there mate. I'm in the process of inviting all Yorkshire wikipedians. We need a better turn out than last time haha. I'm also trying to get future meet ups in Leeds advertised in the wikiproject Yorkshire news letter. Regards IJA (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You should never bath in an Irish Stew!
• It's a most ridiculous thing to do -
• But, should you persist against my reasoning,
• Be sure to add the appropriate seasoning.

Best --GuillaumeTell 23:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:China USA Locator.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I missed that one. Now fixed. Bazonka (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is hidden because Oxford 20 hasn't happened yet. It's tomorrow, if you're interested. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bazonka, I'm thankful for improvements but doubt that the link to Deforestation during the Roman period should have been erased. The Deforestation article itself shows the weaknesses Grove and others refer to, as it is based resepctively a main tenet of the old but debunked narrative of "everything was Eden till the Romans came". I have made some remarks on the talk page of the deforestation article. I am somewhat surprised that users seem angry about my contributions and would like to enhance and elaborate the environmental history there aspect in good vibes.

If you would like to have a look on my last work of WP art, have a look on User:Serten/Popular image of red indians in Germany ;) Cheers Serten (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I deleted those words is because they made no sense, and I wasn't able to turn them into meaningful English. Bazonka (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, such is life. Lets have a look how to integrate the link in amore understandeable fashion ;) Serten (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bazonka,

You may be interested in the thread I started at meta:Talk:Meetup/Manchester/26.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I replied to your questions for me at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Ks0stm/Questions. Feel free to take a look at your leisure, and if you would like any elaboration or clarification feel free to ask. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If that album is about Columbus, then it's much more likely that it refers to 28th North."

True enough, thank you for correction!--
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 02:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for a revert with a useful comment. David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 02:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to World Games may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[rugby sevens]], [[taekwondo]], [[triathlon]] and women's [[Olympic weightlifting|weightlifting]]). Other sports have been Olympic sports in the past (like [[tug of war]]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BracketBot! Bazonka (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was restricted by arbcom to two comments in a discussion and find that a very wise restriction. I just want to explain why I stop arguing about the move of Engelbert Humperdinck, although I don't understand why landing on a disambiguation page is any better than seeing a hatnote, and I think that it makes sense not to disambiguate any topic which others a derived from. - If the singer wanted to honour the composer, we might as well do the same. - Look for move debates on my user page, some seem important ones. This one is not. My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: As far as I can tell, the arbcom decision only restricted you to two comments on discussions about infoboxes, so there shouldn't be any problems with you continuing to participate in the discussion at Talk:Engelbert Humperdinck.

I thought I had outlined the advantages and disadvantages of disambiguation pages in my earlier reply to Michael Bednarek. Which part do you disagree with or not understand?

Secondly, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the determination of what should be a primary topic (i.e. the article at the basename) is based upon contemporary usage and long-term significance. Name derivations are not remotely relevant in determing what's primary, nor should they be. Should Boston, Lincolnshire (a small town of 41,000 inhabitants) be the primary topic instead of Boston (state capital of Massachusetts with 4 million inhabitants, named after the other Boston)? Should Barack Obama, Sr. (a Kenyan economist) be the primary topic instead of Barack Obama (US president, and son of the other Barack)? By your reasoning, yes they should. But common sense and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC say otherwise. Boston, Massachusetts and President Obama are far more likely to be the topics sought by someone entering Boston or Barack Obama into the search box. As for the two Engelberts, I don't think there is a strong preference either way, therefore I assert that there is no primary topic, and so per WP:TWODABS, a disambiguation page takes the basename instead. Bazonka (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is no problem in more than two comments, but find that there is a lot of wisdom in it. Imagine some Wikipedia discussions with everybody adhering to it ;) - I agree with you on Boston and Obama. Do you agree with me on the hymn and the music (cantatas, organ preludes ...) derived from it? There would be no cantata without the hymn. - I have no problem with disambiguation pages from the start, but I see a problem in a later change, just for the rules' sake. In 100 years, perhaps people will no longer know the singer. Why go by popularity of the moment? - Waste of time comes to mind, - adding content seems so much more important to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primacy can change and so in the future it may be preferable to move the pages again. I don't know enough about the hymn and cantata, but page hits shows that the cantata's article is significantly more viewed than that of the hymn, so I tend to think that perhaps it should become the primary topic. But I will leave it alone - I don't know enough. Bazonka (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy christmas from the absurd Perth location - primacy stinks, and should be eliminated as POV and over-reliant on cretins online satusuro 15:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the lase edit in Southern Right Whale! Gamera1123 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bazonka here is the prove from UN-Habitat who uses the "PEJA"" word first in English beacause there is no translation for these word in the English langauage all the words of the municiaplities of kosovo are spell in enlgish as same in albanian exepct for "Fushë Kosova" that is spelled "Kosovo Field" like i said primary language in kosovo is albanian second is serbian and all Missions in Kosovo like UN-Habitat and more use words like Peja instead of Pec beasauce it Serbian not English.here.Regard and Respect Lindi29 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in desperate need of your help as template editor. I created Template:Consensus-warn for users who are editing content that consists of content dispute. Although, I cannot get a proper code for the associated talk page of the article. Could you please help me? Thank you, Callmemirela (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm really the right person to ask. Presumably this template would place a message on the user's talk page, and you want to link to the talk page of the article where the edit took place. Should you also include a link to the edit diff, so that they're clear on which edit they mean? I guess you will need to include this as one of the parameters when you invoke the template, and so the article and hence its talk page can be ascertained from that perameter. But I'm out of my depth with exactly how to do that. Bazonka (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that tomorrow's going to be the day that Manchester celebrates the Chinese new year, which will likely mean that anything near to Albert Square will be incredibly busy from ~12.30pm onwards. Perhaps the meetup should be rearranged to another day or location? Or if we go ahead, perhaps we should incorporate the celebration somehow? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's not ideal. But I think it's a bit late to change it now, especially with so many new names on the list - they might not see that any changes have been made. I think we're just going to have to go ahead and accept that it may be busy. Take your camera! Bazonka (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My camera will be in attendance! I'll add a note to the page encouraging people to phone or email me if they can't find us, and I'll send an email to those that have signed up to give them my number. Hopefully everything will work out OK! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that Nicholas Square would be far more crowded than Albert Sq. BTW is the "Square Albert" pub still in business? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a Nicolas Square in Manchester, or a "Square Albert" pub. Albert Square is outside of the town hall, which is where the parade starts, hence why it will be rather crowded tomorrow... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Square is where Nicholas Street is crossed by Faulkner Street. You can spot it quite easily: look for this. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the sleet will drive everyone away... Bazonka (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has to rain in Manchester - if it didn't, the cotton would dry out and the yarn would break whilst you span it. Any mill owner will tell you that for nowt. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's more a car park than a square! Mike Peel (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could give me some advice, as you are a rather senior Wikipedian. Who should I contact about a long-running dispute I seem to be in with a rather overzealous Wikipedian, a person who continually reverts all my recent additions to Wikipedia articles, even when they have proper, academic references? A recent example is the article on Castleblayney, a town in County Monaghan. If you get the chance, go to the article on Castleblayney where you will see how all my scrupulously referenced additions have been reverted by this one particular Wikipedian.

I feel a little harassed by this person and need help. I don't know who to contact about this. I'd like an independent adjudicator to intervene in this dispute. I want all my recent edits of the Wikipedia article on Castleblayney to be restored in full as, in this precise case, I have done nothing wrong. Is there a senior Wikipedian you could refer me to. Sorry for bothering you about all this. Laggan Boy (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have just noticed that this rather overzealous Wikipedian has started to put some of my edits back onto the Castleblayney article in an amended form. He (and I'm pretty sure it's a he) has no right whatsoever to amend my scrupulously researched and referenced edits in this way. Laggan Boy (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Laggan Boy: When you made those edits, you will have been shown (above the editing box) this message - notice in particular the last sentence. Therefore, they do have the right to amend your edits. If they are making changes which you disagree with, have you discussed it with them directly? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Laggan Boy. Actually the other editor has every right to amend your edits - that's how Wikipedia works. But in this case, the question is whether he is correct to do so. Are his changes an improvement to the article or do they make it worse? To be honest, I don't have time right now to think about the detail of this case, but the first place to start would be on the article's Talk page or on the other editor's Talk page. Discuss your concerns and hopefully you will come to an agreement. If you can't agree, you can always seek a WP:THIRDOPINION, and if things get really out of hand, take it to WP:ANI (but don't go there unless you really need to). I hope you can sort this out - let me know if there's anything I can do to help, but I am a bit busy at the moment so I may be a bit slow in getting back to you. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bazonka and thanks for the message. 14 June is fine by me. Do you know Walmgate Ale House and Bistro at #25 Walmgate? It used to be called Meltons Two (it's actually a couple of strides from my flat). If you don't know it, there are three floors, but the top floor is apparently rather large. On the other hand, maybe it isn't used much up there, especially at lunchtime. I'll drop in there tomorrow to see what they have to say. We should be able to eat and drink if required (it comes up from the lower floors). There are other alternatives, e.g. in Stonegate, maybe Travelodges, other eateries, etc. Any thoughts? Best GT.

Looks as if STP does not recognise right now. Would you like to add anything to Talk:International recognition of Kosovo before any changes are made? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]