User talk:Dojarca/Archive1

TfD nomination of Template:Bus Terminals in Moscow Oblast

Template:Bus Terminals in Moscow Oblast has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Black Falcon 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Dojarca 09:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow is in FAC now.

As you have contributed to the article Moscow I wanted to let you know it is in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Moscow featured article list now. please see explanations there. --Hirakawacho 12:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please comment here Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Moscow. Also see the talk page regarding your response to the Gallery. And over here Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Moscow they keep saying don't put Image:Mosmetromap.gif. So please comment regarding that issue there. Until you comment there (as soon as possible), I will not revert your last change. Thank you. --Hirakawacho 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another map under another, free license.--Dojarca 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletions for List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast

Thank you for letting me know. I have replied at my talk page. -- Black Falcon 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Baltics

I put and entry in the talk page, that said, I will likely revert your edit on what the "occupation" was as there was one unbroken period of occupation from the start of the Soviet occupation. Your edit incorrectly implies there was some period of non-occupation. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you provided an example. Whether or not Israel annexes Gaza, it still occupies Gaza. Annexation cannot terminate occupation. The reason it's still an occupation--Gaza or the Baltics--is because of the legal principle "ex iniuria ius no oritur" — right can not grow out of injustice.

Additionally, as mentioned, the Baltic States all took steps to insure their de jure continuity regardless of territorial events. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can never figure out how to carry on a conversation in user talk, response to yours on mine. :-) — Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mosmetromap.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Mosmetromap.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Во-первых, "свободное использование" подразумевает распространение.
- Нет, термины use (использование, см. также {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}) и redistibution (перераспространение, требование для совместимости с лицензией GFDL) - имеют разные последствия - первое не может быть перенесно на WikiCommons, второе может. Alex Spade 10:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Во-вторых, При полном или частичном цитировании, заимствовании, использовании ссылка на metro.ru обязательна. подразумевает, что возможно использование материалов со ссылкой (attribution)
- Не в этом дело, см. предыдущий пункт. Alex Spade 10:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
В-третьих, участники русской Википедии связывались с авторами проекта и подтвердили, что лицензия полностью свободна. Материалы с сайта metro.ru (который принадлежит студии Артемия Лебедева) разрешаются для свободной закачки в русский раздел.--Dojarca 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- а) Выдержки из переписки должны быть помещён на страницу описания изображения. б) Разрешение не должно касаться косвенно не только веб-сайтов, но и Википедии, и тем более её русского раздела, оно должно быть обобщённым - указание конкретной возможной формы использования противоречит лицензии GFDL - поэтому их наличие таких ограничений возможен только при {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} с нужным параметром, но никак не {{Attribution}}. Alex Spade 10:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria

Yes, I agree, and I think they sound similar, but I really can't find any sources for it. I can find Marian and Mariana as forms of Marius, so I think Mariana might be the only female form. Minikui 09:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot find sources it is not the excuse to insert the opposite statement.--Dojarca 09:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing so. But everything needs a source, it doesn't matter which statement was first. As long as there is no source for one statement, it is simply considered someone's personal opinion or association. And anyway, I added a source about Maria and there is no mentioning of Marius in it, so now the opposite statement needs a source that proves the opposite Minikui 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an ancient inscription Maria Secunda inscribed next to Lucius Marius Phoebas and supposed by the author of the research to be his wife[1]. Also the Julia Caesaris (wife of Marius) article says she sometimes called Julia Maria.--Dojarca 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, that's interesting. Why not add these as sources in the Maria article, so everybody can see where the info comes from? For example at the bottom of the page in the reference section or simply add a link to the Julia Caesaris article on wikipedia Minikui 14:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing strange. The same story with Marta and many many other names. It is simply Christian propaganda that all those names came from Hebrew.--Dojarca 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's because these names became really popular with christanity I guess. but I added that Maria/Mary/Mirjam are probably originally from egyptian, so that doesn't make them hebrew names either :) Minikui 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross

Thank you for experimenting with the page Cross on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Cross page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- AnonMoos 13:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP MESSING IN A STUPID WAY WITH THE CROSS ARTICLE!

It would be best to refrain from attempting to change things using features of Wikipedia which you don't yet really understand. AnonMoos 09:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow

Please read over Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. From the first link "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting)." From the second link "If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.", "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers)." and "Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult." On top of making it difficult for people to read it also makes the page slow to load. Reducing images is standard and something I do to articles as I find them. Please try and follow policy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with 180px include Heraldry, Unicorn, Mosque, Flower and Montreal. Montreal did have some that were larger but I have reduced them as per the policy. Articles that have large images include London and Toronto but I will be reducing them as well. I don't know why the images appear too small. I have checked 180px images at 1600×1200 on 15", 17", 19" and 24" monitors and they are all perfectly visable. Try setting your preferences to a larger thumbnail size. Please remember that not everybody will have access to high speed internet (I do and I assume that you do also), many people still use dial up. A page like Moscow is large and is slow to load there is no need to make it worse by using large images. If someone wants to see the image they can click on the link and view it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you here say that this is common for Wikipedia??? If you did change the 5 articles, the most of others still remain with those dimentions which were specified by their authors. Doing the discribed procedure (i.e. clicking the images) takes much more time.--Dojarca 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period.--Staberinde 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'yoke' as POV

You have removed a reference to Soviet yoke from the article Estonian SSR, apparently under the presumption that 'yoke' is an inherently WP:POV term. Do you believe the same way in context of Timeline of the Tataro-Mongol Yoke in Russia? Digwuren 07:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this context the term is well-established in scientific literature to refer the period.--Dojarca 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Just a reminder to avoid personal attacks when engaging in discussion with other editors. Regardless of how convinced you are that they're wrong, saying that they believe that the earth is flat and so forth isn't a good idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

If you have a content dispute use the talk page, do not engage in edit wars. Going up to the 3RR is gaming the system. after the first revert you need to move the discussion to the talk page rather than edit summaries. This is referring to Template:World War II. Your edits removing the USSR as a German ally needed to be discussed, as they definitely go against the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. — Ocatecir ^T 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is a non-aggression pact and the issue already dicussed in the talk page with consensus.--Dojarca 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]