I warn you not to leave bad word on message sent to other people and dont even think about threatening other users, you want to discriminate go do it in your own house not here, OK.period. Heres part of message you send me --> You said my edit were crap and said"You know what happens to people who do that..." I say, No man I dont know what happens, why dont you explain to me word by word if you are such big lawyer.

1. Go to your RfA subpage, and either accept or decline your nomination. If you decline, be sure to inform your nominator.
2. After you accept your nomination, make sure to answer the standard questions for all candidates.
3. Change the time on your RfA page to indicate the current time.
4. and add the following text above the most recent nomination (replacing USERNAME with your name):

   {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME}}
----

Best of luck --Jay(Reply) 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only closed the CfD per the community discussion, which resulted from a WikiProject Military discussion. I did not personally delete and recategorize to the new category, so I suggest you talk to someone who has knowledge on the subject (perhaps the original proposer of the CfD). I do agree with you, but I would also like the opinion of someone who knows a good deal on the topic. Nishkid64 20:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix them myself. Thanks for letting me know about the problem though. Sportyguy03

Hi, I've added a question to your RfA. Also, could you elaborate on how you will prevent vandalism? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

I guess I was too tired to connect the dots. I don't know if it would be better to elaborate on the RfA answer or wait for someone to ask. Probably if you go ahead you'll avoid someone opposing based on vague answers or something like that. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to wish you a good luck for your RfA. Take care -- Imoeng 23:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB 17:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hangman thanks for doing that for me

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there is a conflict between people disagreeing about terminology. I just want to find out whatever one is correct - could you possibly argue your case on the talk page? Thanks The Enlightened 01:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user removed your footnotes from the election article and added much text without citations after I let him or her know that they were necessary. He then claimed the footnotes were irrelevant. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just discovered them when before I logged in. I'm asking them if they're somehow affliated with the election, due to their suspicious username. -- Zanimum 17:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brampton_municipal_election%2C_2006 has received a considerable amount of work and should not be sumarily reverted without due consideration for other editors and their efforts.Brampton 2006 18:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You commented that the line about Gael Miles and John Villella was POV refering to what another editor posted. This is a different post. Please compare the two and you will see that the POV was removed. It is now mater of fact statement of the tightness of the race when only two candidates are going head to head.Brampton 2006 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your message on my talk page. Thinking about this further, do you think we need to WP:RFCU or is it obvious enough to take it to WP:AN/I? JChap2007 21:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Statements like this: "The most notable" are POV. The most notable by whose standards? Yours, apparently. Others may not share your point of view.

Also: "The tightest race". Just because there will only be two candidates does not necessarily mean it will be the tightest race. Maybe one candidate will receive 92% of the vote? It's not up to you to decide what the tightest race will be.

I'm removing such statements. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "It is not meant to be encyclopedic" Pardon, but this is an encyclopedia. Of course it is meant to be encyclopedic. If something's not encyclopedic, it doesn't belong here, it belongs on a blog or something. You can't cite it anyway, and even if you could cite it (or parts of it) to a specific person, you could only include it in something to do with that person--they're not universal issues. I'm again removing it. Please do not re-add it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if you will review and think (using some intelect) about the purpose of having a page about an on-going election for people to update as the election campains heat up, it make every bit of sense that the issues of the election be itentified. This is kind of like a public service offering by Wiki to help document a historical event in Brampton (and others that have similar pages and similar issues identified. Why don't you research and post the issue of the election yourself if you don't agree those are the main issues Brampton needs to deal with. The inclusion of the section is necessary and proper in keeping with the purpose of the Article as a running summary of dynamic historical significants to the people of Brampton. I am sure that everyone in Brampton is interested if they knew it was there. You seem to have taken quite an interest with it yourself.Brampton 2006 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brampton_2006"

Oz,

I have filed a WP:RFCU in the above case. If you still want to join me in filing, you might want to check it out. Personally, after the comments he made at your RfAdmin, I don't have a lot of doubt. I contacted Gwernol about Brampton 2006 and he thinks it's probable he is WW. He tagged his user page with an SSP tag and warned him for incivility. JChap2007 05:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game started here. bibliomaniac15 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you got through the RfA process with 100% support, so well done! I hope you enjoy your time as an administrator - good luck and happy editing! (aeropagitica) 23:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, congratulations. Use the new tools wisely, as I'm sure you will. Be conservative with them, especially at first, but as you get familiar with them dig in and help clear the backlogs. Diffusing a situation is often more valuable than blocking, so see if you can do that whenever possible. Have fun, and again congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 23:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on gaining your new super-powers! Now go out there kick some ass and take no prisoners. As for me, the articles on the Queen, Stephen Harper, and Don Cherry have Vandalize Us written all over them. Just kidding. Happy editting. —I'm MJCdetroit and I approved this message. —02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Does this mean that Peel will give you a raise? ;) JChap2007 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Os! If you ever need help with the new tools, you know where to reach me. =) Nishkid64 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OzLawyer, congratulations on your appointment as Administrator. Certainly, from what I have seen of your integrity to producing quality articles and your contributions to keeping this project (Wikipedia) and world class resource, it was an excellent choice. Cheers, HJKeats 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your RfA, but congrats on the adminship anyway! I remember you from the whole WikiDoo/WikiRoo/WikiEtc fiasco and agree your participation was quite admirable. Glad to see you got the mop! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 06:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of what libraries you frequent (if you even frequent libraries at all), but perhaps you may want to look into scanning an old photo or two of Brampton if you ever happen to come upon an old newspaper, especially ones taken during major development in the 60's and 70's. As usual, it isn't anything urgent, nonetheless, such photos would add greatly to quite a few articles. On another subject, what do you say we make a drive to get Brampton up to featured article status sometime in the New Year. It's worth a shot. --Jay(Reply) 00:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A BCC photo when it was being built would be great if there is one. --Jay(Reply) 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note you're fairly conversant in Latin, so I was wondering if you could translate a city motto for me so that I could include it in an infobox: Per Ardva Ad Summum Bonum Civilium.

Sure - that's "Through Struggles to the Greatest Good of the Citizens" (or, "the greatest civic good"). It's a fairly obvious play on the traditional tag per ardua ad astra, "through struggles to the stars." - Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might see as well a play in the Latin itself there— arduus means literally "steep", and summum literally "highest" (and also "top of" in a construction like this), so you have the metaphor of climbing "through steepnesses to the top of..." expressing the more idiomatic interpretation of "through difficulties to the greatest civic good". (If 'citizens' was meant, I'm not sure why the ordinary word civium "of citizens" wouldn't be used, instead of 'civilium', which is more like "of things pertaining to citizens", but then, the use of the vocabulary changes over time...) Oh! And in addition to per ardua ad astra I'd also link you to summum bonum which also has an article. —Muke Tever talk 16:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oz, Thought that I would drop you a line and let you know that I have been working on some of your requests. You can see an example of the progress at my sandbox here. The motto is the only thing that is working the way you might like, for now. I need to figure out how to get the flag/seal/coa/logo to wrap into 2 and 2 (just in case someone puts all 4 in). Regards, MJCdetroit 21:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Done, with the help of a couple other editors. The flag/seal/coa/logo will now wrap if all four are entered. Here's the example if you want to see or play with it. I'll probably adjust the live template in a day or two. Regards,—MJCdetroit 04:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for making your comment with delete on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school. I had not realized I had been so unclear. I have clarified my position, as I certainly did not mean to assert one cannot learn. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response - I am still not certain we are understanding one another, however as this has strayed from the subject of the Mfd I have chosen not to reply there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be understanding me, but I think I understand you. I guess I'm just trying to say that I believe people are far more able to improve themselves, even in the most fundamental ways that are often considered "fixed", and that having a knowledgeable mentor might be a way towards that (but I don't think an online school could ever qualify as such a mentorship).

This really has little to do with the question of whether someone can learn to be an admin, however—I think virtually any editor already has it in themselves to become an admin, and they're simply choosing to act in ways that will prevent them from being recognized as admin material. Even Willy on Wheels could be an admin if he wanted to be. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is virtually a non-disagreement between us, although I feel that such fundamental changes are rare. I beleive that humans are unique in that they can decide who they want to be, and then become that. However, while a WoW likely to decide to want to become an Admin for base reasons, the internal transformation from vandal who disrupts as a hobby to someone who truly desires to assist this undertaking is unlikely - more so for some than others - and the "school" would help the surface goal of passing an Rfa but not address the internals, as that is the personal desires of the user, which only he or she can change - and if they change there, they do not need a school. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're on the same page here—I am in complete agreement that the school would not serve the right purpose. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments re Shire of Christmas Island - I've fixed it up (and the related page at Cocos) to better reflect reality. The template itself is going out the window soon, I might bring the issue up at {{Infobox Australian Place}} so it can be properly handled rather than kludged. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panarjedde is the one with the edit war here. He's been making bad faith reverts over every little edit that he doesn't like. Kingjeff 19:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering of you could help me out with getting votes for expanding an article I started a while back. My old US Australia relations article is currently being considered for expansion by the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To vote, go here and scroll to the bottom.

Thanks! Sharkface217 05:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like his earlier edits, but the last one I considered an improvement. Electionworld Talk? 09:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Malvinas already redirect to the Falklands article, anyway. Good night, Asterion^talk 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i was wondering why u reverted my changes and moved the page back to the mispelling, its bene quite well documented including in the following like (bottom of the page, ) that the mistakes in his name were due to naught but mispellings and problems with documentation, http://soccernet.espn.go.com/players/profile?id=34532&cc=5739 Crabman123 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC) _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!

— Saxifrage

Dear Osgoodelawyer, I am watching the discussions on talk page. Thanks for your conrubutions. There are many POV there. Unfortunately it is very hard to find a concensus(not impossible).
The main problem is; to discuss "Template" and "status of each country/state in template" together.
May be more helpful to discuss each country/state's status case by case. Later correctly naming those. and then Template.
Ref/remark numbers included in template or not.(My POV, no need any additional entry in template.)
For your info(There were mutual message between you and Nikosilver on TRNC), this link may help in your discussion.UN search Sorry, I dont want to much intervene in discussions. Regards Mustafa Akalp^TC 18:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was very helpful. Cheers.--Eupator 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is not yet a book that expresses this opinion, since the time is too short, but it is orally expressed by number of astrologers, and one book at least is in preparation that expresses this exact opinion. When they release printed material, I put the links and references :)

IAU resolution and resistance to it complicated matter very much. Planets use the name the general public agrees on, asteroids are named by discoverers. Two first planets discovered in modern times did no held original names given by discoverers, so actually, Tombaugh even did not dare name Pluto and made plebiscite. The same apply here. The resistance in some astrological circles is high, I suggest to read discussions on Urania-PL@yahoogroups.com.

Alright, I've reverted myself. Sorry 'bout that! Khoikhoi 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I haven't got the chance to do that yet. ;-) Khoikhoi 19:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not reinsert the population into the table please, it was a decision made by khoikhoi (who is an admin) to not have a population stated for now.Khosrow II 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, Tekleni is a good personal friend of mine. I feel pretty bad about doing this, and would rather recuse myself from escalating this further. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I don't know what the hell he is thinking.... Khoikhoi 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, you, the lawyer guy: WTF are you interfering for? This has nothing whatsoever to do with you.--Konstantinos Palaiologos 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on the Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia page both sides were abusive, that's why I reverted to that earlier version. Hope you don't mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA done I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera) I appreciate The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you have the augacity to call me a vandal! I have written well over 1000 articles including 5 on Canadian shopping centres (3 of which are London, Ontario malls). By no means am I "misrepresenting" the floor area of Masonville Place. I, along with many others, have used anchor retail space plus the Gross Leasable Area (GLA) to calculate the Total Area of the mall. The article is asking for ""Total Area"" of the mall, not just GLA.

First off, I did explain in the Edit Summary section where I got 1,048,000 sq. ft. when I wrote it. I stated that I added the anchor retail area on the bottom of the article to the GLA (685,000 sq. ft.) to get 1,048,000 sq. ft.!

Second of all, all of the the Ivanhoe Cambridge shopping centres (eg. Oshawa Centre, Vaughan Mills, etc.)have used anchor area plus GLA to get the Total Area in all of their Wiki articles as well.

Since you live in Brampton and likely have never even set foot in Masonville Place (or by extension London), you likely have no real idea just how large the mall is. Merkin77 12:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally part of the Kalarippayattu article until it was split off by Kjrajesh into a separate article originally called Disputed history of Kalarippayattu.[1]

As for what the article is for, it was originally a response to certain editors who repeatedly presented, using sources either unnamed or unreliable, as undisputed fact that the East Asian martial arts come from kalarippayattu and, later, the Indian martial arts in general.[2] It was at that point that I changed the title of the article to Indian origins of East Asian martial arts? with the question mark.[3]
Bwithh changed the title to Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts[4] and Kennethtennyson to its present title.[5]
JFD 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, a POV fork?

Pretty much, yeah.

If they couldn't source their claims in the right place, then an article with them shouldn't have been created elsewhere.
Tell that to them!
JFD 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. As for your concern about my approach to the editing of policy pages, while I still feel that policy pages ought to be the most stable pages on WP, for more than one reason I withdrew from participation on policy pages a couple of months ago. -- Donald Albury 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liked the new celtic infobox, but what is the significance of the new color scheme on the map - why is Wales orange and Brittany purple ? Surely better to leave all red as in previous Celtic nations map, or at least Wales/red, Brittany/black and Cornwall/orange for example?

Well, I used the "rainbow colours" since they're a usual set. As for assigning which colour to which nation, while I tried to make them match as much as I could, with Scotland in blue (St. Andrew's cross), Ireland in green (green is obviously associated with Ireland), and Isle of Man in red (it has a red flag), obviously we can't make them all match exactly. If I chose black for either Cornwall or Brittany, I'd have to choose something other than black for the other of the two (they're both associated with black and white). Also, black does not really fit in with a colour scheme. If you think that Cornwall is better off orange and Wales yellow (which now that i think about it, yellow is better for Wales, as it's in St. David's cross), then I can switch those around.

As for just one colour, I don't like the idea, since it doesn't differentiate the nations very well, and in the case of the Isle of Man, may at first glance make someone not familiar with the concept think that the sixth nation is Northern Ireland and that the Isle of Man is just some island belonging to Scotland or Northern Ireland, or whatever. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain him "fair use" images are not "free images"? He reverted your edit [6]. --Panarjedde 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right, I got it. Panathinaikos logo is exclusivity. I guess you will sue me if i add it again hahahaha. And something else: I don't care if u r an administrator or just a user but I don't like threats. Actually I hate them. So don't threat me again pal. KaragouniS 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osgoodelawyer,

(removing superscript on notes again. if these were superscripted then they'd point TO notes, not be the notes themselves. check out an article with footnotes, List of countries for instance)

My experience is that if a list of footnotes is given a heading, say at the end of a chapter or book, then the numbers listed aren't superscripted; but if one or more are given without heading (e.g. at the bottom of the page on which they appear) then they also appear superscripted...?

(sorry, have to change this back, as the wording as it stood allowed for plenty more notes to be added (and so solves nothing))

Please explain a little further; I don't follow... (Apologies if I'm missing the obvious!)
Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, although I've certainly seen it my way... It's not a big deal—if you want to change them back I won't complain.

Just interested to hear your experience. As you say, it's not a big deal (I'm not on a superscript mission!) but may amend them again in passing days/weeks after this forgotten...

...in using "significant territory", we're explicitly removing from notes the possibility of things like small off-shore islands, as they wouldn't be significant... _└ ^OzLawyer / talk ^┐ 18:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point – thanks for explaining!

Yours, David (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mop

Congratulations on becoming an admin! Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care: Category:Images with unknown source Category:Images with no copyright tag Category:Images with unknown copyright status Category:Replaceable fair use images All the best! - Quadell

The flamethrower

I'm getting pretty fricking gosh damn tired of your scumass editing stunts. You better quit using your nubs to edit the article Pencil. I know what you did last summer. Let your shoulder lean.

... and never edit my profile again. And if u dont know malakes means also "stupid" (not only jerk). So please don't interfere with my profile again and leave me alone. Find something else to do with and not piss me off. KaragouniS 19:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i start to realise that there is no democracy in here. WP policy look like a junta government. Anyway... KaragouniS 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the word "μαλθακοί" (malthaki) means strange in greek and ancient greek. Hope its ok now KaragouniS 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, comment removed. I respect the WP laws, but WP doesnt seem to respect me as a user. Anyway... KaragouniS 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been interested in both Vexillogy and Micronations for some time now, and you edited a page on my watchlist. For the Flag of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands page, you just added a flag infobox. Infoboxes are great, but (there's always a "but," isn't there?) in adding it, the page automatically appears under the Category: "National flags." The thing is: it isn't a nation, so it can't have a national flag. No other micronation's flag is in that category - and few, if any, even have seperate pages for flags.

Please tell me what you think about this. Scoutersig 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like a plan. If you would do it, please; I have a hard enough time editing just plain text, let alone infoboxes and categories. Scoutersig 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also thank for the userbox help. In some browsers, it showed up fine, in others: well, it was crappy. One day I'll learn how that works. Scoutersig 16:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the swastika-like badge was Apollon Smyrnis badge since 1891 (according to some apollon fans I asked) and was removed in 1940 due to nazi invasion in Europe. You know, photographs before 1940 are considered rare in Greece (you see, very very few greeks had cameras these days). I also found out that this picture is the only picture showing Apollon's first badge. This team is also called as "The 1938 Light Brigade" mainly because these players have won the local athens championship. Please do something because this photo is rare in the internet and I can't replace it. What should i do to keep this photo? KaragouniS 14:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... i have to send a letter in stadia.gr admin and forward his confirmation back to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org"? KaragouniS 16:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do that, with the edits from the same guy, in 2001-present war in Afghanistan article, but since he does not play fair, I got fed up with that. See [[7]] for more information on the ongoing dispute. Warrior on Terrorism 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, he did it again. [8] --HanzoHattori 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following image galleries of team logos were removed by Osgoodelawyer because "fair use logos ... only allowed on articles for the teams themselves".

I can remember something like that, but can't find the place where it was written.. can somebody help? - Weapon X (de) 14:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images have to have a fair use rationale for each use on the image description page. This often this isn't followed for logos, since logos are basically always usable on pages for the organization or company in question (unlike photos, which really need a detailed explanation of why a non-commercial image of the subject could not be found). However, use anywhere else would fail the fair use criteria since it would not contribute significantly to the article (it's just decoration, which is a no-no). Clearly this is the case, since the articles for all the major sports leagues lack team logos.

Policy point 9 at WP:FU says you can't put these logos here either (even temporarily). I have removed the first four since they are already used on the articles for the teams, and so aren't in danger of deletion. The other four have to go as well—just save them yourself if you feel they're going to be deleted, and if you create pages for those teams, you can put them on them as well. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmh, so I also removed the second one on this talk page and made team articles (only stubs, because their isn't that much information available yet) where I placed the team logos. However, possibly another wikipedian oder admin will tag these articles as being "proposed to be merged" with the LFL article, because they haven't much info, so we will start from the beginning...

And can you please let me know, where to find the policy (or something like that) so I can read it completely and if neccessary fall back on it, when I need to.

Another question: If I'll get the permission of the logo owner, to show the logos also on the league-article, would that make a difference? - Greetings Weapon X (de) 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the legality of what you're proposing. I would assume that if you got permission and sent that permission to Wikimedia by following the procedure at WP:COPYREQ, then you could include the logos on the league article. But I'm not certain, since such images on Wikipedia are usually allowed through the owner licencing the images under GFDL or some other copyleft licence, and the league is obviously not going to do that (it would mean others could take those logos and use them for their own purposes, including making money off them). I would suggest you ask somewhere at WP:RFCA (probably Wikipedia talk:Copyrights). └ OzLawyer ┐ 15:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references! - Weapon X (de) 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert, I just changed it. Wyoming is the postal address, and makes more sense then assigning an entire township as being a county seat. I think we should stick with mailing addresses, especially considering some census divisions are single-tier. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the region uses Bramalea, then we should use it. They may not have borders, but unless the administrative offices are in the middle of nowhere, they are going to be in a community which will be indisputably known as being that community. Again, this comes to consistency. If we are going to label the county seat of Prince Edward County as Picton, we should do a similar thing with Lambton County. Whatever the municipality says is their seat (clearly Lambton says "Wyoming", then we can source that. It does not mention Plympton-Wyoming as being the seat at all. How can we source that? -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

County seat is just another term for where the administrative building is. We are allowed to do that I think. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting the iamges of the Cambodia flags on the commons. (MrBungle79 (17:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oz, the reason I reverted the moves before is that although you may not know, there was aprevious AFD for this page and the verdict was keep - article and title. The editor who moved it was going against the AFD verdict. As for moving it now, you made the AFD discussion almost invalid. One of the main arguments is whether the word terrorist should be used. renaming it withot any agreement or discussion was in bad faith. And if you don't like the word "terrorist" rename all the pages I listed in the AFD discussion, and everything else that has the word terrorist in it. Also search for words like "terrorist", "terrorism" etc on Wikipedia and remove every single incident that is categorized as "terrorist". ALSO nominate the Terrorist Attack template for deletion. Unless you do all of these, you will clearly be displaying duplicity in your acts, and your POV in favour of the LTTE. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Oz, I'm really interested to know how this battle "picked you". And come on, your just lazy. Please :) If your care about Wikipedia so much, I suggest you do what I say and nominate em all for deletion.

As for you POV, I'm sorry to make accusations, but unfortunately comments like "indeed, it has even been accused--in some cases likely justifiably--of blaming its own soldiers' crazed attacks on the LTTE" gives it away. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say it's better because i like it better. I understand my view may not be universally held. I say it's standard because all the other provinces have the same style map. I figured someone just forgot NL. If you don't like it, feel free to revert it, but in the interest of consistency, i suggest changing all the other provinces' locator maps too. A unified style is better than different styles, regardless of your opinion of the particular style in question.

Thanks for your feedback. Foobaz·o< 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, i fully support your work to standardize on your preferred style. I guess i shouldn't use the spiffy new Image:Maritimes-Canada-region.png i just made then. :-) Foobaz·o< 01:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"revert silly embossed map. *nothing* is gained by it, and it actually distorts features" "(getting rid of silly embossed map. just because you can do it with photoshop doesn't mean it should be done. simplicity in maps is important. heck, why don't we give Ontario a plaid pattern?)" "revert map change--no need to *emboss* and *metallicize* a map--it is unnecessary. simplicity in maps is important. this is not an art contest)" "(map is a) not better (details are actually LOST in the stupid embossed-nature of this map), and b) has just been slapped on all the provinces/territories TODAY (hardly *standard*))

I can understand that you don't like a particular image or change, but there's no need to call names. It's not distorted (they are UTM projection, the same kind of projection used in the current maps). Nothing is gained... well, nothing is lost; the current maps are very low resolution images (due to a former shortcomming of the provincial infobox template); if you think the new ones are overdone, or that the change was to bold, it sufices to change them back, no need to get all hyped up.

FYI, the "metallic" style had some success (in FA articles like Vancouver and Banff National Park or GA's like Calgary and Edmonton).

I didn't change the map in QC as the page is s-protected, and I can't log in for the time being. Cheers. Qyd 04:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so caustic, but it really seemed like a change simply for change's sake, not one that did anything worthwhile. I just wonder what would possess you to think that an embossed image could do anything but take away from the purpose of a map (which is to simplify and display the subject in two dimensions). What we need are some SVG images for the provinces and territories (which I think I'm going to try to work on sometime), not "prettied up" images. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 04:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, clear svg maps would be the best solution. As for what drove me... well, something you probably loath, I just did it because I could :) No hard feelings. Qyd04:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Osgoodlawyer,

(rv. doesn't appear that there's linewrap on even the smallest monitors. template looks *much* better this way)

Per my edit summary here, hopefully the best of both worlds now in place.

Meanwhile, does the separator between each link appear like this:

item 1 • item 2

...or like this:

item 1 •item 2

...on your display/s...?  Just checking!  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Given the POVs that some folk seem to want to push, this may be of interest...

I think someone's messing with templates or Wikipedia code used within the template, and that's why things are messing up. The way it is now is completely bonkers, and the way it was before (with Firefox) was perfect, no problem whatsoever. _└ ^OzLawyer / talk ^┐ 18:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted User:MrDarcy's edit and left him/her an explanatory note. David (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was looking over his talkpage, and I noticed he had a long history of personal attacks and incivility. Had I seen that before I warned him, I would have probably submitted him directly for a block. However, I also wasn't sure if you were doing some sort of mentoring, or mediation. I briefly remember seeing an AMA post on there. Is some such intervention already going on there? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please take back your baseless accusation immediately.

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Iwazaki 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again please take back your baseless accusation .You are not doing yourself any good, esp as a admin,by falsely accusing people --Iwazaki 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cadillac Fairview logo.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in process of editing Mississauga page when I recieved this message. Your changes may be overwritten. I will make sure that your changes appear. Thanks. ArsalanKhan 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let me know why you deleted "Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE" page. The deletion debate showed most people wanted to keep it. Dutugemunu 07:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the fact that an open proxy essentially told me that Bobabobabo was fucking around at Bulbapedia (and that my personal account there got blocked in the process) I saw that a user there was claiming to be a user here who was proven to be Bobabobabo in a prior checkuser performed on an open proxy he/she used to attack me at the Japanese Wikipedia. I put two and two together, and got a block in place.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 17:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit for why I suspected and the proof—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like you uploaded Image:Western isles.gif a few months ago. Can you go back and check the licensing information for this image. It certainly isn't a computer icon, and you haven't indicated the source of this copyrighted image or any rationale for its fair use. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 13:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need your advice on this matter. user:snowolfd4 launched a sockpuppet case against me and user:Trincomanb with some dubious evidence, claiming voting fraud etc etc for one of the afds you were involved with. Your insight on this case would very relevant. I launched a checkuser on myself and Trincomanb hoping to sort this out. First it was rejected because I applied for it, then I got Sudharsansn to do it for me and here is the result [9]. The checkuser person thinks its "Likely" (sigh). Both of us have given a rebuttal for the results. Trincomanb upon hearing the checkuser results decided to strike out his vote in the afd + tfd and I am awaiting his defence in all of this. I would sincerely ask you to comment on the case [10] when you get a chance. Thanks, Elalan 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is obvious is that we have two different IPs. The checkuser person's opinion is that its "Likely" but there is no definite answer. Elalan 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "(stop adding languages here. french only, as it is an official language of canada. it's neat that Irish has an original name for the place, but even that's not necessary. the rest must go.)" and you are absolutely right. I added Hungarian to show the fatuousness of adding Irish and Latin. I think, actually, that the addition of the name of their land in the language of the 25 or so surviving native people might be fair, but, well, perhaps someone can give a view on this.

You have an unfortunate way of putting it, however. Here's a better way:

"(Please stop adding languages here. French is fine, as it is an official language of Canada. It's neat that Irish has an original name for the place, but even that's not necessary. The rest need to go.)"

That's better now, isn't it?

Hi Osgoodelawyer, I think it has been very unfair to block Elalan indefinitely when the case has still not been confirmed with any statistical evidence or just any information at all. An issue was raised, Essjay suspected something very inconclusively and now it is being declared to be a sockpuppet issue - a lot of coherence is lacking and it appears as if this whole thing has been foisted upon him. Elalan has contributed immensely to WP:NCSLC and has done a lot of good work. As per the Checkuser request Essjay has clearly mentioned that it very inconclusive and that it could not be confirmed at all. Furthermore, it has been mentioned in his block log that he has done 'abusive work' which to me is a very derogatory statement to use against a fellow editor who has a lot of edits nd contributions in Eiki. I would be very glad if you could provide a clarification on his indefinite block, which sounds too harsh towards any editor with all the contributions by his side. Looking fwd to hear your opinion on this issue. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to offend you, just wanted an admin opinion on this. That's all! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When two styles are allowed, changing from one style to the other is not allowed. The fact that this article is about Jewish history does not mean that CE/BCE style is mandatory, or that AD/BC is less legal.--Panarjedde 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! pschemp | talk 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are undoubtedly the same person as User:Goethean. Since you have voted in AfDs with both accounts, you are violating WP:SOCK. I will kindly ask you to choose one account to edit with. Further use of both accounts may result in me having to take administrative action against you. And we don't want that. Patto1ro 22:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all due respect, I would like to explain to you why I have removed certain links that you call "silliness" and replaced. First of all, I am Dutch and a member of Zythos, the Belgian beer consumers association. So, my knowledge of Belgian/Dutch/German beer comes from experience, not from something many Americans call "an authoritative source." So, for example, Belgian Dark may be American definition of a Belgian style, but it is certainly not a Belgian definition. For your reference, please take a look at this: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorie:Biersoort This is a reasonably complete list, missing only Saison, that I have noticed. Dark in Dutch, btw, is Donker.

Secondly, questions about "style guidelines" and that sort of thing belong in an article about home-brewing, not a general-interest encyclopedia for people who are more interested in non-technical information.

Thirdly, the BJCP may be a god among American home brewers, but in Europe, almost no one has ever heard of them (I speak from experience). If the BJCP wants to issue style guides for practice by home brewers, I see nothing wrong with that. Even if the styles are not technically correct, for practice, that doesn't really matter. However, when these same styles are now put into an encyclopedia for the general public and it is explained that this is exactly what the beer is like, then it does become an issue.

And finally, American comments on European beers. I don't have any problem if someone wants to say in a conversation, something like: "I think European beers are terrible and I prefer American beers." However, reporting comments here by Americans seems to me somewhat arrogant. Perhaps there were some French comments or Dutch comments or even British comments that also have a valid point. Where are they? I would heartily like to recomment that you read Anglo-American focus for more on this question.

I've removed one of the links you replaced for the reasons I've listed above. If you disagree, let's talk more. I would hope that we can settle this peacefully and quickly. Mikebe 09:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to tell you that I've responded to your comments on my talk page. Thanks. Mikebe 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I responded on my talk page last night. Have you anything you'd like to say or have we finally reached agreement? Mikebe 08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take great exception to being called a cheat and a liar. I am neither. When you realise your mistake, I expect an apology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patto1ro (talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I´m still waiting for an apology.Patto1ro 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not ready to admit you were wrong? Tut, tut, tut. Patto1ro 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do a checkuser on me if still think that I'm a liar. I've nothing to hide. Or are you afraid of finding out that you've made a mistake?Patto1ro 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated that Mikebe and I are the same person. I say that we are not. Either I am lying or you are mistaken. Which is it? Please have the courtesy to reply. If you are going to make accusations have the courage to defend them or admit your error.Patto1ro 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still believe me and Mikebe are the same person, therefore you are calling me a liar because I can assure you that we are not. Tell me what I need to do to get a checkuser done. I am prepared to have any check done on my identity. If you aren't prepared to take this any further with the wikipedia admin, I will.

I will not be called a liar without evidence. I have no intention of ever contributing again to wikipedia, but I will not let someone make such an accusation against me and then refuse to attempt to prove it. Only a coward or a bully would act in such a way.Patto1ro 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain a) why you think User:Patto1ro and User:Mikebe are the same user and if you don't think they are violating WP:SOCK why you brought the matter up? Thanks. JoshuaZ 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have examples of the "blatantly anti-American" edits? JoshuaZ 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple "I was mistaken" will do.Patto1ro 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Tim Webb" not "Tim Web". Mikebe 16:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if users Johnowenlangham, JohnJohnJohnJohn and Orchardbank are targetting the Polmont article, in fact it looks like they are violating WP:SOCK Fraslet 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised by both the tone of your comments on Talk:Wales and also the way you go against basic format for a poll. People do have a valid case, because for example both the Isle of Man and Republic of Ireland pages give their native language name first. I'm surprised because I would have thought as an admin you would use more polite language. MarkThomas 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good-oh. I take it that explains your considered phrase "this poll is dumb" in bold. Nice doing business. MarkThomas 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I parry with Wikipedia:Voting is not evil! MarkThomas 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In this page (Greek Football Amateur Cup) a user called Gx25 is constantly removing the internal links and the references which I used to create that page. I tried to persuade him to stop it, but he doesn't listen anybody. Please, can you do something about that?--KaragouniS 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

awell, informing the Greek (and unaware about the deletion) users is not a crime. I just told them about the delete proposition :)--KaragouniS 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just improved karagounis' article, ok? i didn't know that he didn't want to change that and i said to him that i saw his messages just today —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gx25 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I thought our short conversation last evening showed that cooperation might be possible. Was I wrong? Mikebe 09:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked over the discussions I am forced to conclude that a) the emphasis on American beer style guides is undue weight and thus not NPOV (it might be acceptable if weight and mention were also given to the European ones with clear indicators that the American ones are just American and have no consensus outside the US). b) I don't see anything "anti-American" about the other users edits. I strongly suggest you remain civil and cooperate with them in developoin NPOV versions of the articles in question. JoshuaZ 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser was performed on the two users in question. They seem to be unrelated. JoshuaZ 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Wiki. Checkuser requests are often done by email or various instant messengers clients between users who know each other. Sometimes that is more efficient than going through needless buaracracy. If you want a message confirming that the checkuser occured bug User talk:Jayjg who performed it. JoshuaZ 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've seen your work and I admire your role as a neutral wikipedian in alot of hotly debated articles. Rather than ask more partial and emotional users to help with the article Special Task Force and the related Talk page, I would apreciate it if you involved yourself in maintaining Wikipedia policy. The article and related talk page have become constantly under attack in blatant forms of vandalism and comments that are reverted as well as just warnings revoked. Again, any help you can render would be apreciated. --Sharz 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is necessary to remove it altogether. As I have mentioned in Talk:Languages_of_the_European_Union#Logo, it is developed and proposed officially [11] for the purposes of European Year of Languages 2001 and European Day of Languages, though it is not the official logo. So I believe with the clarification made -or even with a better one- it can stay for illustrating the articles.--Michkalas 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's up for deletion again Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 December 20, guess who nominated it. Oh, you guessed. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a question about where you got the image of the Enterprise. Maybe you could clarify? JChap2007 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment in the talk page for Mohamed Sissoko under the topic you created, and I hope you can address it. The gist is that Sissoko not only has Malian heritage, but also citizenship, and that's not reflected in the current edit. Thanks. Ytny 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there is an ongoing and rather prolonged discussion over some data about the new member states in Languages_of_the_European_Union#Language_skills_of_European_Union_citizens, please see the discussion in Talk:Languages_of_the_European_Union#2007_update and, as you have recently contributed to the article, you may want to add some comment. --Michkalas 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osgoodelawyer, if you have time, your input on an issue of international law is requested on Talk:Transnistria, please. Just scroll down to the section headed "Is Transnistria a sovereign state?" - Mauco 13:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo gib.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tardis-hieroglyph.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am slowly working on just what "nations" have actual football teams/associations, but it's a long job! Whether or not they are "nations" at all is exactly the point of the NF-Board and UNPO - if the people of Hawaii, for instance, have a claim to nationhood, then it has to be observed in all ways possible, whether or not the UN, FIFA or the USA approves of it! It's a very interesting subject, and certainly worthy of further discussion Superlinus 17:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Canada and the United States have different geographic naming conventions for cities. The Canadian convention permits non-disambiguation for major cities and for places with unique names, regardless of size; only the American convention requires disambiguation at all times. If you'd like to propose a change in the Canadian convention, or to move an article because you don't feel that it meets the necessary criteria, you can propose either of those for discussion, but pages that do currently meet the Canadian naming convention, such as Greater Sudbury, should not be arbitrarily moved without some kind of discussion first. Thanks. Bearcat 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC:CITY. Under the Canadian convention, note "Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles." For what it's worth, the list of Canadian places currently at undisambiguated titles includes several other places, including Lloydminster, Iqaluit, Flin Flon and Moncton, that wouldn't qualify as being among Canada's largest or most internationally famous cities, but do fit the "unique name" criterion. Bearcat 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for what it's worth, Greater Sudbury was moved to the undisambiguated title on October 6 by User:David Kernow. If you feel strongly that it shouldn't be at that title, you can always propose a discussion around moving it back, but moves like this should never be done arbitrarily. Bearcat 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was extensive discussion among the Canadian editorial contingent through much of 2006 about what the Canadian convention should be. Some of it took place at the Canadian noticeboard, some on the talk pages of individual city articles, some at the talk pages of the naming convention itself. No changes were made to the Canadian convention without widespread consensus; the general feeling is that most Canadian Wikipedians would rather be in line with the conventions in place for the rest of the world than with the endless feuding over the American convention. Again, if you don't like it, you're always free to propose a change to the convention for discussion, but the convention as currently written represents a widespread consensus of Canadian editors, not any one person's individual opinion. Bearcat 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're seeing is a lot of back-and-forth over what the conditions should be for permitting "Placename" as a title convention. However, the consensus that it should be permitted in a wider and more flexible set of circumstances than the American convention was entirely unanimous; to be perfectly honest, the only Canadian editor who ever partook in the discussions to express the opinion that "Placename, Province" should be a mandatory format was, believe it or not, me. Bearcat 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you made this move and I want to explain why I disagree with it. In Soviet Union or in Russia a region named Transnistria never existed. This appeared as a separate region only in WW2, when the teritorry between Dniester and South Bug was administered by Romania, following Axis invasion against Soviet Union, where Romania was allied with Germany. Previously, this teritorry was divided between Kherson region and Podolia region, but, AFAIK, it was never a separate entity on its own. After the war again it was not a separate teritorry on its own, it was divided between Soviet republics of Moldova (what is actually named Transnistria but is only a small part of WW2 region) and Ukraine (Odessa region and also parts of other regions).--MariusM 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, previously, there was the MASSR. But before that it was just a part of Ukraine, sure enough.

Regarding Transnistria (region): The history is already covered in History of Transnistria the current situation is in Transnistria and its geography is not that expansive to go beyond a section in the main article and a list of places. I don't like the "Soviet region" either, because it never was one under that (Romanian!) name. And in that particular period of time it was a Romania-administered territory. --Illythr 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the message in my talk page - the subject of article is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there were several books published on this subject (one mentioned by Illythr on article's talk page). Also, there is a lot of confusions, sometimes deliberately spread, between actual Transnistria (which is a strip of land at Dniester bank) and WW2 Transnistria (which is a much bigger territory). Is incorrect to call it Soviet region, is also incorrect to call it Romanian region. Even if it was under Romanian administration, it was never declared part of Romania. Nazi Germany wanted to convince Romanian dictator Antonescu to anex Transnistria as a compensation for Romanian teritory in Northern Transylvania which was given to Hungary (same kind of compensation like Soviet did with Poland - they took some Polish teritorries and "compensate" Poland with some German teritorry after WW2), however Romanian authorities didn't made their minds what to do with this teritorry, they administrated it without a formal declaration of anexation and kept a border and custom on Dniester. As this region was created as a separate entity during WW2 and ceased to exist as a separate entity after WW2, I believe the title Transnistria (WW II) is the best.--MariusM 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check Administrative divisions of Ukraine. Former Transnistria (WW2) is now Moldovan Transnistria + parts of Odessa, Mikolayiv and Vinitsa regions of Ukraine.--MariusM 14:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:ASL Juliett.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]