Happy Wiki-ing. —Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs}

Hello, I'm a new wikipedian from Texas, and I've just translated the article on the Catholic Apostolic National Church of Brazil from the Portuguese page, using my knowledge of Spanish and a dictionary, and adding a single fact I knew.. It says on your page that you know Portuguese. Could you check over my translation and see if anything contradicts the Portuguese version? You can leave my a message on my talk page. And another thing: how did you learn all those languages!? Kennethmyers 16:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC

Portuguese/English Translation

Thank you very much for responding! Yes, the source of the English translation was the Portuguese article, but I also added a fact which I am sure of (which is that the bishop who was re-accepted into the Roman Catholic Church had a wife and children). Also, I ommited some information about the previous attempts to create a national Brazilian church, because I thought they were a little non sequitur, and probably belong in another article. I would be extremely thankful if you could point out where I was innacurate, and either change it yourself, or tell me to. Thank you! Kennethmyers 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Hi! Thank you so much for looking at the article. I used the word "National" in the title because that's how I had heard the name. It looks like someone has fixed that too, now. If I can ever help you with anything, please let me know! Kennethmyers 05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrodynes

Hi, I'm OrangUtanUK who has done some stuff on the Gyrodynes page. I'm sorry, ut I was doing a chuky big change today and I think it's conflicted with some things you put in. I hope i've identified the main changes and merged them into my update, but perhaps it would be a good idea if you had a look and checked that you like my contribution.

best wishes; OrangUtanUK 17:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, mate. I wasn't referring to your edit in that summary - your edit was good. I was talking about Ptcamn's revert, which undid a capitalization, and alphabetical orders, when they could have just re-added Bosnian instead of reverting. Sorry about the confusion. - King Ivan 07:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, Beeblebrox! I just hammered on the Bellows page for a while - is this what you had in mind for cleanup? Cbdorsett 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I have a little request: can you help out with the translation from Slovenian to English on Slovenian parliamentary election, 2004? The only thing remaining is "Nepovezanih poslancev" and "Nepovezani poslanec", which I'm guessing are the plural and singular of something like "unaligned candidates" or "independent deputies". Thanks. Cbdorsett 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out there. I cleaned up a little bit, and I changed "Deputy group" to "delegation," which is the correct English term for a group of members of an elected body, who are all in the same party. In the US Congress, there is a Democratic delegation, a Republican delegation, and so on. I don't know about British usage - it could be quite different. Cbdorsett 04:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biblbroks,

Thanks for welcoming me! I’ve known several people from the Balkan region at various times. It’s an interesting region, and I think the Balkan languages are fun as well. I wonder if you could do me a favor. The Wiktionary has an article on Interlingua with several translations, but one Balkan language, Croatian, isn’t yet included. I gather that you speak this language natively. Could you add the Croatian word for Interlingua? That would be great! The article is located here. By the way, the English Wikipedia article on Interlingua is here.

Thank you, 66.68.174.245 (not my real name :)

Hi Biblbroks, I have cited about a sentence on Dragan Stojkovic you have posted in August.(^^)v Hope you write about him in Srpski, and "Uncle Milé(Milé Servy)"in English.auto-translation about whom I am talking of<-- "lead star" is Red Star.So, "[Mire]pop and lead star" is "Grandpa Mile and Red Star". about donation lots of Japanese fans raised for him. picture of him.

Is him somehow famous, I wonder?

See you around.--Orcano 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Zoran Radmilovic.jpg. 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 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on a form of Wiki before. I do not need any tips on how to do this site. hrwiki is where I started off, as Balmung and Sanjuro; I do not need any help starting off on this site.

--FireMan

If you want to see the lead shortened, then it would behoove you to either make a suggestion or tell me why you think that it is too long. Just slamming a tag on it is unacceptable IMO, especially when the lead is as long as it is because the article was chided for its being too short in the past.

The standards call for the lead to be between one and four paragraphs long. It is. --EMS | Talk 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... for your welcome! --Nice poa 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some comments on your removal of Ptolemy on the timeline's talk page. Rjm at sleepers 06:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Nrm, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that now BlueAzure has been skipping boards and placing multiple tags on a group of articles, one of which you helped to edit. The Milena Lukich article is among that group affected and is now facing Afd. If you have anything to add, I think it is important to disallow a single editor from continuing this kind of harassment. Thank you for your timeHollywoodFan1 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Zoran radmilovic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Nick of time.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Female_race_defiler2.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me is surprise to tell this but user:Nikola Smolenski has been right. See this compromise version which has been destroyed by nationalistic SPA accounts:"Mehmedalija "Meša" Selimović (Cyrillic: Мехмедалија "Меша" Селимовић) (26 April 1910 - 11 July 1982) was a Yugoslavian writer, one of the greatest 20th century novelists of Bosnian and Serbian literature."--Rjecina (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:Luna Santin, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 01:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 01:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite gone, actually. But thank you. :) Best, Durova^Charge! 07:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biblbroks. Concerning your contribution, International relations regarding Kosovo, a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). As a violation of the page move process, International relations regarding Kosovo needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. International relations regarding Kosovo has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either the page you intended to move or International relations regarding Kosovo until the latter has been deleted according to Wikipedia's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you did not intend to make a page move, then please insert the {{hangon}} tag right below the {{db-copypaste}} tag in International relations regarding Kosovo and state your intentions on Talk:International relations regarding Kosovo. An administrator will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. Thank you for your contributions.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblbroks, I have placed a note on the Administrators' Noticeboard because of your disruptive behaviour. I know you are acting in good faith, but your recent actions have led me to this. Bazonka (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too believe that you are acting in good faith, but controversial edits such as moving or redirecting a page require a majority consensus. Your proposal was rejected by an overwhelming majority. There was a recent discussion about renaming the article and it led to renaming the article "International recognition of Kosovo". Here is the discussion, which had a consensus to rename the article. Also once/ if you have a consensus, you have to perform the rename via WP:RM. Please take this into consideration. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that, but a lot of people will revert your edits without a consensus and say WP:DONTBEADICK Ijanderson (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not claiming that this article has a POV title: International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Ijanderson (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your belief, I wasn't being ironic. Bazonka (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biblbroks. You have new messages at Andrewcrawford's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Biblbroks, I have brought this discussion to your talk page because it is taking up waaay too much space on the Talk:International recognition of Kosovo page. And I apologise for spelling your name incorrectly before.
Let me explain the meaning of "flogging a dead horse". You completely misunderstood it. The "horse" refers to your argument which you are "flogging" (whipping) by trying to continue it. In other words, you are working very hard to make something work, but it is a waste of time because it is "dead" - it will never, ever work.
Now for answering some of your questions:

1. "Who can be authoritative enough to connect the context and the meaning in every given case?" I don't understand what you mean. Why do you need authority for this? There is no authority amongst Wikipedia editors - things are done by consensus. And the consensus (with the exception of you) is that the title adequately covers the context of the article.
2. "If it is about recognition of independence, why couldn't it be also about recognition of dependence?" I suppose that a country that doesn't recognise Kosovo as an independent state, by default "recognises" it as a province of Serbia. But this isn't really how it works diplomatically. Diplomatically, countries recognise other countries, not bits of countries. For example, all countries "recognise" that California is part of the USA, but no countries have an embassy to California because they don't diplomatically recognise California - their embassy (and official recognition) is with the USA. So the "recognition" in the title of this article obviously refers to recognition as an independent state, not as part of a larger state.
3. "There are many ways of recognitions. With how many should this article deal with?" My statement "...entities recognise in a variety of ways..." was a response to your argument that recognition is a process. I was pointing out that there is not just one process for recognition, but many. I do not understand why the "process" element of recongition is at all relevant.
4. It could be considered POV that the article's title assumes that we mean recognition of Kosovo as independent, not recognition as a Serbian province. I think there may a valid case for renaming the article to "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" to remove this ambiguity. Yes, I said that there may be some ambiguity in the title - but not in the word "recognition"! The potential ambiguity is in the meaning of "Kosovo" - do we here refer to the state or to the province? But as I have said in point 2 above, this change is not entirely necessary because it should be clear that we are referring to Kosovo as an independent state. Hence my comment about "pedantic semantics". Semantics are, as you say, important. But extreme pedantry is unnecessary - it could turn a useful article into something unreadable.
   

Biblbroks, please can you repond to this post here, on your talk page. That way the whole discussion will be easier to read. Bazonka (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will indulge you and answer on this page. A bit, though, because my opinion is that the debate should continue on the talk page for the matters of continuity, consistency and especially transparency. Therefore, I will transfer a part from it there, too. And apology accepted, but with a note of you being careful in the future - too much has had me disturbed (as personal attacks) in your words. Not to mention the hostility of some other contributors. The term hostility was used here instead of the terms personal attacks - as they do in England with euphemisms, don't they. Sincerely I'm not not taking you very neutral at the moment. Especially not objective. Maybe not even sincere.

As for the explanation of the phrase: there's no need for you to do that. I got your point. The very first time. Unfortunately you haven't got mine. I hope you get it now: don't take the role of some kind of authority whether consensus exists or could exist. Neither do describe my actions. I don't yours. And if I may be a bit sarcastic with you not to mind that too much and explain my figure of speech (if you haven't got it yet): a person is much more humanely AND/OR reasonably "metaphored" with a horse, than an issue could be personified with anything else, not even a horse.

The other issues I will answer on the talk page. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove links from these pages that have not been fully repaired, as you did with Norwood. The page still has a direct link to the disambiguation page, Norwood Park, which means that it still shows up as a page needing repair to disambiguators. Intentional disambig links must be piped through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect, to remove the link from the reports of those needing repairs. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is perfect. That way, when a disambiguator generates a list of pages needing repair, Northport will not show up on the list. Cheers again! bd2412 T 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought I'd mention that I saw you recent edit to this template, and I would suggest you take a look at Help:Magic_words#Conditional_expressions for the correct syntax of the #ifeq parser function: it was a good effort, but you didn't use the syntax correctly. I need to rush offline now, but I'll give you some help with the syntax later if you want it. Regards, GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I rushed that message a bit. The correct syntax for the #ifeq parser function is {{#ifeq:x|y|result1|result2}}. If x is equal to y, the result is result1; otherwise, it's result2. You tried to add an extra pair of conditions I believe, but since the result is either x equals y or x is not equal to y, that doesn't work. Take a look at the syntax for "#switch" at Help:Magic_words#Conditional_expressions, this seems to be what you were trying to do. Hope that helps; happy editing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you've seen, my youtube reference is genuine contribution from German TV. Agricultural tool called "Sheaf knife" in English or "Gerber Messer" in German. While this tool might have been used for killing people, it definitively ISN'T "specially designed" for killing humans as first sentence says. Big effort is being done by certain Serbian extremist circles to increase number of victims (as if, for example, 70-100.000 really killed in Jasenovac concentration camp isn't hedious enough), mostly in order to justify crimes done by Serbian paramilitaries in 1990's.

Here is one more link: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.hr-online.de/website/fernsehen/sendungen/index.jsp%3Frubrik%3D22664%26key%3Dstandard_document_33193668%26lugal%3D1%26ibp%3D0&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhiyZmWTmWOdaN-grFgN2KzFkfNmew —Preceding unsigned comment added by MahnitiTapir (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could be of help. Thanks for your note. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. I am dedicated to making positive contributions to the project, and I like to think I am a patient person, but unfortunately the actions of other editors have made me lose my patience. I am glad I could have contributed to this project before this happened, and I am happy to have interacted with more pleasant editors, yourself included. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Biblbroks. You have new messages at Template talk:Thanks.
Message added 20:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.