User talk:Bazonka/Archive 5

Hello Bazonka. The article is a really poor stub, however, Azzam Al Dakhil seems to be a notable person in the Saudi Arabia - see the Google News Archive search for reliable sources. I'm going to remove the prod tag, take the article to AfD if you wish. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If the stub hasn't improved in a week or so, I may take it to AfD. Bazonka (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all other articles of the World Cup it has been specified whether the match was penalty kick or in extra time..I don't understand. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of showing aet information in the bracket? I understand why you'd show whether a team won on penalties, but extra time applies equally to both teams - it's not like Ghana advanced because they had more extra time than the States. If the reader wants more information about the match, then this could be found elsewhere in the article containing the bracket. Bazonka (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following the pattern of all the brackets info in the other World Cup articles..be kind at least to modify the other articles by removing the aet and penalty info in the diagram so there is some consistency throughout the articles.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Zöe Salmon, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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.  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Please assume good faith, rather than branding me "unconstructive", and see my comments at Talk:Zöe Salmon#Umlaut, in particular the reference to WP:UCN. Bazonka (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The particular problem was the copy and paste move (See: WP:C&P) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in that case surely a Template:Uw-c&pmove notification would have been more appropriate for me. I was unable to redirect Zöe Salmon to Zoe Salmon, because it already existed as a redirect. I'll see if I can work out how to do it properly without copy and pasting. Bazonka (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, didn't know their was one. I'll have to remember it's under 'Single issue notices' in WP:Twinkle. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think we have both learnt something from this. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Have a look at Crown Dependencies. British and UK are not synonymous. The Crown Dependencies are dependencies of the British Crown in a sort of personal union, but are not dependencies of the UK (although there is a complicated constitutional relationship). The agreed formulation between the governments is that each Crown Dependency has "an international identity which is different from that of the UK". Hope this helps. Man vyi (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bazonka. I appreciate your good faith edit in the International recognition of Kosovo article, fully removing the sentence containing information on which of Kosovo's neighbours recognise it. I am just puzzled as to why you feel that a word such as entity is "horrible", I've never encountered such a hostile approach to the usage. It is just that across the whole site, the word is so useful in that it can allow everyone to exemplify precisely what is planned, even amid bitter conflicts, and yet it causes offence to nobody. If you have followed my recent activity, I've been submerged in this controversial Occupation of Albania (1912-1913) article. We dispute the title, not so much the article itself. Here where we are dealing with a soon-to-be-inaugurated territory called Albania in 1912 and a de jure Ottoman Empire that has fled the scene and two would-be belligerents fighting alongside each other in the hope of dividing something that is res nullius. The only word I can think of that can serve as an umbrella term for all parties is "entity", it means thing that exists. That cannot be "horrible", surely? Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you thought I was being overly hostile or rude - probably "horrible" was an inappropriate word to use. The reason I object to the use of "entities" is simply because it is too broad and imprecise. "Political entities" might have been better, but "entities" by itself could refer to any number of things - e.g. fields, lakes, parishes (or the Balkan equivalent), people. I know what you meant, but it just seemed strange. In any case, I've removed the text now so I don't think we need to worry about this too much. Bazonka (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. In light of the full extent of "entity" per se, you did the best thing and remove the information. After all, it is not difficult to establish which countries do and do not recognise Kosovo as there is ample thread to follow. And which of its neighbours recognise it is not even important, it amounts more to trivia. So good call. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what are the international organization important for Kosovo? EFTA and CEFTA are not? I haven't listed EVERY intl. organization, although... You're inflexible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentiu Popa (talk • contribs) 12:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed on Talk:International recognition of Kosovo before, and I suggest you re-raise the discussion there if you still feel the need to include ASEAN membership, etc. Kosovo and Serbia have no aspirations or prospects of ever joining these organisations. They are totally irrelevant to the article's subject matter. There may be an argument in mentioning EFTA and CEFTA membership, but as these are economic and not political organisations, then they are still not especially relevant. This should be discussed on Talk. By the way, referring to me as inflexible after only one revert does not seem very civil. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although ASEAN is not an organisation that Kosovo and Serbia seek membership, it is and organization which both Serbia and Kosovo are commercially involved. For me, CEFTA appears as a must to be mentioned, because Kosovo and Serbia are already members. EFTA is a European economic organization that fully recognizes Kosovo as an independent state. Your reaction of stating that other organizations are irrelevant is a reaction of an inflexible man. Only now you've said the criteria on which any organization is picked. NATO for example is a military alliance. Laurentiu Popa (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2010 (EET)

Take it to the article's talk page, and please be civil. Bazonka (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only historical and international name of the body of water between Iran(Persia) and Arabia is "Persian Gulf". Refering to it as "Gulf of Iran" is absolutely wrong. In fact (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but that is what the International Hydrographic Organization call it in their publication Limits of Oceans and Seas. This fact is notable. Bazonka (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the contradict template. User:Hike796 seems to have a habit of adding templates like that and never discussing things on talk pages. Give it a day, perhaps, then remove it, I suggest, unless others join in the discussion of course. Pfly (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here: Template talk:Politics of Côte d'Ivoire. Everyking (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for the additional modification. Didn't notice the tiny part of Huludao Prefecture when looking at Google Earth. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you on Kosovo for the moment until you return. This use of "partially" is considered incorrect by a great many pedants because of its conservative meaning. That is generally a good enough reason to insist upon a certain usage here but "partly" may also mislead. See this description[1]. I'd rather rewrite the section than use language certified as incorrect. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain?

See [2] "partially is used when you talk about a condition or state. partly is a part distinct from a whole such as a physical object"

And [3] "some commentators insist that partially means only “to a limited degree” (My liver and bacon were only partially cooked; they were practically raw), and partly means only “in part” (My lunch was only partly cooked; the salad and vegetable were meant to be served cold)".

To my understanding "partially" is the more appropriate word. "Partly recognised" implies that only bits of Kosovo are recognised, whereas "partially recognised" implies that all of Kosovo is recognised, but to a limited extent.

Bazonka (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I am sorry I even raised the issue now. It is certainly widely accepted as "partially" when meaning "in part" but the language pedants still insist that this word is the adverb of partial (eg. partially judged). I normally make switches from common standard to conservative usage where the latter still has currency; but so rife is partially for partially recognised that it even appears in the sources we care to use. This was only a language matter and not a content dispute so I won't touch that section from now on. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because in the English language, "Xinjiang" indisputably refers to the administrative region, but the situation is different for "Tibet". Areas with a large proportion of ethnic Tibetans extend far out into Sichuan and Qinghai, and partially into Gansu and Yunnan. So to me, this difference sometimes matters. Maybe not to you. -- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 18:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No animosity, it's just not up to us to decide which China is which, just reminding you that (hopefully) WP does not take sides. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err yes - my point exactly. Which is why it is better to say nothing about Taiwan (not taking sides), rather than saying that it is a sovereign state (taking the RoC side). I don't understand how you think my edits were in any way biased. Bazonka (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of bias in anything you've done, it was just the "we'll get shut down" comment that got me worked up. While we shouldn't take sides, we should also not take notice of those that oppose freedom of information. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was meant to be a joke. It was so ridiculous that I really didn't expect anyone to take it seriously. Bazonka (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stubbed Levantine Sea just because it was a redlink. Should the stub even exist? Does the sea even exist? Many thanks for any guidance you can give. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of it before, but there seem to be a number of websites that mention it so I assume the name is used. Certainly worth an article of its own (compare Alboran Sea and Ligurian Sea). I have added a link to the Levantine Sea article in Mediterranean Sea, so that should raise its profile with people who know more about the subject. Bazonka (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well geography of South Korea is limited . a few years ago but that the official sources mentioned were 99,360 and 99,828 today, the Korean sources said they have more time, ie 100 210 What does this mean? well? South Korea just Neighbor north Korea and the other sides is surrounded by the sea and by the ocean. so how increased extent of South Korea during these years continuously ? There are a lot of doubt: 1 - Do (water borderline) boundaries move?

2 - Do small sections of the border with North Korea during the contract transferred to South Korea? Unlikely because not announced anything?

3 - Does ownership of the island or islands reached South Korea?

4 - Does the ocean and sea backward and extent of South Korea has been much ??????!!!! None of this is not rational Meanwhile the gradual increase?

Only one possibility remains that the dried sea

But given the status of South Korean coast about 1000 square kilometers increased during these few years is reasonable? what reference have been measures area? my english language isnt good so you like edit incorrect words (but only words not content!!!!) thanks so much

about china:tibet and sinkiang and inner mongolia (total about 4000000 square kilometer havent native chinese (han desent)and h forget dispart from china in soon about 20 to 30 years in future)Especially tibet and sinkiang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.103.246 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do not know the explanation. Bazonka (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi a good man in GBR my idea this:Colonial ends and all of people should know han people is china and not all of today PRC

What your idea about zionist arm in 2012 Olympic games in your country? it is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.108.28 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Independence_Movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan_Islamic_Movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.78.108 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know what relevance your comments have. I don't think there is any Zionist "arm" at the Olympics - this seems to be nothing but Iranian paranoia. Bazonka (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what mean paranoia? Iranian paranoia? This does not look as?!!! look at this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3wYU_H6IzZY/TW0tWNKXQYI/AAAAAAAADEo/pC4ycKRbPnQ/s400/London%2BOlympics%2B2012%2BZION.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.86.64 (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC) four section in this arm is enough?u have any idea? what need point top of I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.86.64 (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upsurge of protest to the show `s fourth Olympics in June 2007 Julian British National Olympic Committee of directors after the 2012 Olympics hosted by points won during a special ceremony of the official tournament logo, London Olympics was unveiled, despite the expected event emotion is associated with certain types of performance directors in the UK National Olympic Committee led sessions designed logo unveiled the official logo of the Olympic Games to be associated with various margins.

Abundant type of protests took place in British management from this session was that the protesters taken to design the official logo of the games design company that opportunism knew that racist issues that were used to symbolize this tactic by Israel The official logo displayed Drbyayd Olympics.

The British designed the logo for the company to "Jewish Avlynz Wolf" were entrusted with the payment of 400 thousand pounds, the designers gave the company an opportunity to Israeli administrators in the company to plug this particular opportunistic Israel take steps to form the word subtly «zion» in the project somehow put the people first look at this graphic designs are thought to treat this symbol represents the number "2012" while a little careful with this logo can be realized racist intentions. Disclosure on London radio!

But apathy UK National Olympic Committee executives and political behavior Zionist alloy they actually confirmed in the June 2009 year to a scholar in the English program "Radio London" with the secret documents reveal racist take this action.

what your idea about this as a UK people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.86.64 (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud! It is just a badly designed logo that looks more like Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob than anything else. Everything you have said is Iranian anti-western propaganda/paranoia and the rest of the world laughs at it. Please don't forget to sign your comments. Bazonka (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh!!!no

crying for what?no crying!!!any crying!!!without sound!!!!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia Paranoia???oh that is bad and not correct word!!!!!

blowjob isnt in dictionary!!!(fun) not iranian advertising=propaganda but arab world caricaturist propaganda and muslim worlds no neccesary point in middle of arm but desingers arm is jewish???

What was needed designer is Jewish? in muslim countries laughs bbc lies.!!! Anyway thanks for your sights(=understanding) and your reply

good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.116.213 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The designer may be Jewish (I don't know), and perhaps the inclusion of the word Zion was deliberate (doubtful but possible), but what is the harm if this is the case? It's only a logo, not a crusade. Iran is not doing itself any favours by pursuing this pettiness. How come no other Muslim countries have expressed concern? Bazonka (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes my friend it seem to deliberate.yes it is not very important issue but zionist use any Opportunity for propaganda her religion this matter isnt correct and good. about any muslm country what expect from Puppet country?many of muslim country have good relationship with israel example saudi arabia bahrain jordan egypt algeria and........

and israel scare people of world from iran not syria turkey and.....? aramagedon world war in end of world and very other Superstitions but i am thanks for your Logical and good reply

i am a hybrid (two descent)in a ..........? on the other hand i have two nationality

can you guess my two nationality? and How much English is hard(many words about 1000000 words) I want to learn English well It is a book that is the most widely used English words????about 10000 of useful english words(that i am with know of this words understand all movie news and my exams????) help me?????????what good book exist?can you Inset me useful book??? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.108.145 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this book? Only joking. Perhaps you should try The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, or anything by P.G. Wodehouse. Bazonka (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh you konw many article in this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area

many article ommited are you know its reason????

goodbye see you later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.108.145 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The older threads have been moved into the archives - see the links in the box at the top of the page. And you're still forgetting to sign your posts. Bazonka (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

what this? http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Paranoia-Professionals-Families-Sufferers/dp/0313363196/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1300737809&sr=8-2

it is fun or joke?!!!

yes this book The Great Gatsby is good but my mean is:most use vocablury have exist such book?(book that have about 10000 most important words that i know those are and i understand Almost all of common news movie and university exams?)If there is no such a book? are u know english have how many verbs?(how many)?(almost) are u know mean of all of english words as a native speaker?

and whats u mean from this:And you're still forgetting to sign your posts i dont know because i havent many Experience in wikipedia how sign my posts?

thanks a lot

I can't think of any suitable books, sorry. Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the signature button at the top of the edit box. Bazonka (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your participation in WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#Territories, I believe you'd also be interested to share your opinion and ideas at Talk:List of current heads of state and heads of government. 203.198.25.115 (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra it's 76 country who Recognize Kosovo http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/andorra-recognised-kosovo-s-statehood http://www.rtva.ad/noticia.aspx?id=30829 and please don't have stupid! first find the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.66.95.33 (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Why are you telling me this? The International recognition of Kosovo article has mentioned Andorra's recognition for a couple of days now. And who are you calling stupid? Bazonka (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry! but in anothers languajes he had actuallizated! it's the problem with wikipedia! anybody write.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.66.95.33 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly... Bazonka (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bazonka for your attention to Environment Agency. 99.181.141.251 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I work at EA, so let me know if you need any further insider information. But remember that everything used in the article must have a proper, externally-accessible source. Bazonka (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also. Be aware that User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) hides/deletes other's Talk, such as May 19th on User Talk:Zodon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834 ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 and User talk:OhanaUnited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 These are related to Template:Sustainability and Sustainability (and related topics). There are many other examples of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing such as Large Cities Climate Leadership Group... Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bazonka, thank you. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye if you're going I'll be more willing to go. There is a town near me called Hebden Bridge and I can get to Manchester Victoria train station in 35-40 mins on the train so Manchester is rather easy for me to get to. Also as I'm currently unemployed, I have nothing better to do haha. Cheers mate, I'm glad to finally have a degree even though a 2:1 would have been nicer. I buggered up an essay on Enoch Powell so that is another reason to hate him haha. We could meet up in Manchester around 12ish and head to the Waterhouse for 1ish? IJA (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking, sounds good to me. My train gets in at 11:30 at Manc Vic so that will give me time to get that metro-tram thingy across the city to get to Manc-Pic where I can meet you because I have no idea with this W'spoons Pub is in Manc. IJA (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]