|
Just noticed your edits on Southern Ocean - what a relief its constructive by a blue linked editor - there had been some stange happenings at the article. Also impressed by your user name - in Java (a much vandalised article than one) some mythologies have people trilocating and bilocating - but I like the desscription of your persona- many places - hope you enjoy wikipedia and avoid all the messy bits... :) Satu Suro 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed your work at World Ocean - this article looks sound - but roaming cleanup/mop persons of the wikipedian type will in fact have good reason to slap tags on the article becuase it dosnt cite refs or sources - to survive these horse persons of the apocalypse wikipedian style - you must find a ref or citation to defend the articles against the V and N issues - if you dont know those issues- well worth reading up on WP:V and WP:N before they dismount from their horses... Satu Suro 13:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would emphasise the hose or horse persons have the annoying capacity to throw in their tags and become a nuisance... a specific english language thing on what his name and world ocean - book or article cited - might be needed for the geographically linguistcally or culturally challenged :)
- Ok - the process for starting a wp - is to (a) check every category and article that might relate (ie ocean, oceanography etc) and the major article ocean- see what might link there - and if there is no sign of a WP linked in any way - its clear (b) there is a WP page for people wanting to start up wps (I know i more or less started australian mairitime history) - and see if anyone is itnerested - you gotta get the correct format for a project - put it on a sub page of your user page - and copy/reverse engineer other projects - no harm done - so that it looks ok - (c) enough interesst from others- and youre up and running. - you gotta get friends who are admins - they can pull strings re setting up a project - never ever be rude to an admin! they are our gaurdians against the horse persons of the steppes (or roaring sixties... I still havent made that art yet - I worked on a stub of the furious fifties.. but...) enough for the moment - beware the V and N issues - try to haul in the nets for refs from books or arts - sometimes links to online sources can be criticised by the ones with shiny boots... :) cheers Satu Suro 14:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know a map librarian who has a phd in the geography and politics of sea and national boundaries in the indian ocean. I think he and I would be having apoplexy at some of the assertions of the concept of where boundaries exist in the article based on the world ocean idea- there are endless edit fights and young eds from the mid west of the states who relate that they have been taught this and that about where seas and oceans start (the pacific ocean bundary in the middle of indonesia (I am on the indonesian project there as well and the ocean/sea boundries are almost as much fun with the x thousand islands as welll) ) in most of the ocean and sea articles - as well as peripheral articles - the uncertainties regarding exact boundaries between seas and oceans etc - and the reaching for the cia world fact book as the final answer - or a copy of twenty year old paper encyclopedia reference - can only make the task more difficult - beware the lurking protectors of the truth (believe me I found one who hovers around the 'rat' article... ) - please dont tell me I havent warned you! Satu Suro 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok - your multiple edit reply has been read - your world ocean article - (1) specific reference - can go under a section titled reference (2) further reading not cited or refered to but good for the subject (3) external links - online sources. some eds see red when they see an undiferentiated collection of sources of diff types...
Project - well seeing that I belong to too many - no problems I'll help you. just let me know when - but real life does really get to me at times... so i can get too wordy... Satu Suro 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Just look at the bottom part of that article - all that you need to see in a well laid out example of what I was trying to point out above... look at and enjoy! Satu Suro 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree 100% with your decision to revert the warning template (I was about to do the same) you shouldn't have marked the change as minor. It's unlikely to be noncontraversial. WilyD 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I agree with the edit you made. But - uh - there are a few Latin Americans who really resent the meaning of the word America in English, and our use of Continent. Pretty much, it boils down to Well, this is what we say it in Spanish/Portraguese while failing to understand that nuance can be lost in translation. Anyways, I just meant it as a friendly heads-up.
WilyD 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- In general, if an editor puts a generic complaint like that on an article without bringing their concerns to the talk page, you can feel free to just remove it. FWIW, there's no evidence the Olympics Rings imply the Americas are a single continent. Generically, they sometimes are said to represent "The Five Inhabited Regions of the World where sports are played" (I guess the Foosball played in Antartica doesn't count). Besides, even if there are only five inhabited continents, any idiot with a map can see Europe and Asia are on the same continent ;) WilyD 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, Answers.com is just a mirror of Wikipedia - don't use it for a source. It just barfs up whatever Wikipedia says.
WilyD 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, can't say I've seen that one before, though I think it goes back to my translation point. Anyhew, I was under the impression the reason Answers.com is different from Wikipedia is that it only updates every so often. I may be wrong. But I doubt you'll get it in as a reliable source easily.
WilyD 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh, I don't like having to deal with this, but Use of the word American, which is basically a naked endorsement of Manifest Destiny set me of enough to get me dragged in. I may be wrong, but I am pretty confident it's just the roughness of translations that causes the problem. WilyD 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, can't say I've seen that one before, though I think it goes back to my translation point. Anyhew, I was under the impression the reason Answers.com is different from Wikipedia is that it only updates every so often. I may be wrong. But I doubt you'll get it in as a reliable source easily.
WilyD 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I would like you to participate in the discussion in the "North America" talk page but, will you tell me, why is adding a reference to the 100 largest cities in North America beyond the largest 10 cities in the article a problem to you?
Cocoliras ( talk) 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You deserve a barnstar.
| File:Interlingual Barnstar.png | The Geography Barnstar | |
| Quizimodo, for contributions to geographic articles. Axl 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
suppose should say welcome - hey there is now an antarctic project - I have been tagging for projects rather than getting into articles - my poor indonesian project friends face sheer terror at the hands of punctuation and dots and tees police - I merrily tag away., for the moment. it would be well worth having a close look at what has happened at the project level - some projects die, some live - well worth supporting living ones - they are good for tying lots o things in. happy swimming :) Satu Suro 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica just in case you had not found it Satu Suro 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Cripes you venture into continents - and one wonders about the word with in included... :( Satu Suro 15:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Incontinence to me seems to be the propensity or the (god Im going shakespearian as I am about to finsih after a very long day on wikipedia) tendency of some editors when it comes to wanting to... nah I think I should restrain my criticisms. Todays most over-edited article I am sure was the one on the Cutty Sark- I had it on watch before the fire - cripes maritime heritage is so dammned fragile... anyways i am off in every sense of the word - take care! Satu Suro 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I see - trust that fits better - some javanese change names if they seem too heavy or if children are sick repeatedly the parents change their name. Ive only changed my wiki once so far, but i feel a third one coming later this year i think... ;) Satu Suro 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Very close to what my father called me when i was very young - familiar family name - I have put a comment at the proposal - I hate getting bashed around the head with articles that claim that a place is in an ocean when they are not - it annoys the hell out of me - 'good ocean boundary definition would be part and parecel to shoo off the flys of the geographically challenged (and 50 year old school atlassees) Satu Suro 02:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Map update on Netherlands
Would you mind if I reverted your edit to Netherlands? I find the new map you introduced inferior to the old one.
- The colours are less clear and pronounced. In the thumbnail, it is hard to discern the borders between EU countries because of the colour used. The difference between Europe and Asia/Africa is almost unnoticeable. Water is white, instead of blue.
- The map itself omits several identifying details of the Netherlands. The West Frisian Islands are absent in the new map, and and the islands of Zeeland seem disconnected and distorted. Also, upper and lower Limburg seem disconnected, the IJselmeer is disproportionally large, and a whole province ( Flevoland) is omitted. This decreases the value of the map for the purposes of illustrating the article the Netherlands. These areas are important, and a never omitted part when drawing a schematic map of the Netherlands. If a drawing shows the islands of Zeeland, the West Frisian Islands, and Limburg, it will be recognised throughout the world as the Netherlands. This is comparable to how Florida is instrumental in recognising the shape of the USA, or the Baja California peninsula to recognising the shape of Mexico.
- Some detail is omitted. This makes the map less pleasing to look at, and decreases function. Blue water, a slightly more 'brown' colour in mountainous areas, and major rivers make a map seem more natural, and allow easier orientation for a reader unfamiliar with the political situation.
- The relocation of the world map to the upper left corner means that a reader will look at that first, while the focal point of the map should be the location of the country in question: the Netherlands. Also, the addition of a few circles denoting very small countries is not helpful here. This map is to show the location of the Netherlands. Those small circles are usually used for colouring small countries in coloured statistical maps, like Image:GDP nominal 2006 world map.PNG. They have no function here, and just distort the overall picture.
- The map is on a larger scale. While I would agree with, for example, showing more of the Middle East, the addition of more water, more Greenland, and Svalbard to the Northeast serves no function. The larger scale decreases the size of the Netherlands, and also enables less detail on the map.
- Purely aesthetic, the new map is just drawn worse than the old map. If this were a vector graphics image, I could understand, but it is not. The coastline is "spiky" in a lot of places, and the Finnish lakes appear to have changed in appearance overnight and are certainly not an endorheic sea the size of Belgium. Denmark appears to be an island. Greek islands have disappeared, and finding light green Malta on a white background takes a microscope.
- Besides all the negative points above, I could find only a single positive item: the change in projection of the world map. However, I do not think this is worth all of the above.
Overall, I feel the new map is inferior to the old one, and therefore would like to revert your edit. I will await your response before doing so. -- User:Krator ( t c) 13:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support immediate revert on each page: Not only because of Krator's arguments, but because not so long ago, for months there had been a heavy debate and several surveys involving about 50 contributors, before D. Liuzzo maps had become accepted, replacing an older style. The arguments brought pro and contra do not seem to be addressed by your maps. Your action does not appear to have been discussed on any relevant site. Unlike for D. Liuzzo maps, I do not know of other language Wikipedias that have accepted your maps either. I'm sorry for your effort, but you should try and discuss these kind of changes rather than 'be bold' if you want to save yourself the trouble. Perhaps take a look at the former discussions, so as to get an idea what people may expect of maps and in what way one could improve them: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries and several other sections on that talk page; from memory I would suggest looking at the talk pages for the same period of Spain and United Kingdom as well. Please do not hesitate to revert. — SomeHuman 17 Jun 2007 17:16 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback; I decided to boldly edit, not fully realising the challenge this would entail but this endeavour is meant to rectify the numerous drawbacks of the prior maps. In any event, two other users (that I know of to date) have provided supportive comments regarding the maps, so reverts seems unjustified. As well, your comment of supporting reverts to each page like that -- despite the commentary above dealing solely with the Netherlands and without cited resistance on other pages for these maps -- seems rather adversarial and unjustified. I am open to suggestions about enhancing the maps. Perhaps I will go around to every article for European countries and elsewhere to re-open this discussion. Thanks. Quizimodo 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Better do have a look at that discussion: after such and several edit wars regarding it, you're going to be in those as well. That is good enough a reason to revert unilateral decisions to change a laboriously obtained consensus that had taken so many arguments into account, before defending your maps. And do place the map_caption parameter back as well, of course. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 17 Jun 2007 17:34 (UTC)
- Yes: a quick read doesn't appear to have yielded (IMO) a clear consensus for any sort of map. Can you please point this out? Wikipedia is not static, and to assume that these sorts of things cannot change is misguided. Only yourself and another editor above have yet expressed opposition to these new maps; anyhow, I am willing and able to spruce up the maps, if necessary. As well, you seem to have been heavily involved in those discussions, and your somewhat aggressive stance above may require me to seek wider input regarding this. I will be back tomorrow to upload the remaining maps, and I may then re-open this discussion. Quizimodo 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I understand; I will add the border. Quizimodo 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- My stance in former discussions does not jeopardize my right to comment on your maps. I do not suggest to be an arbitrator, but do find it brave of you to try and tackle this without backup. Please realize that I am not David Liuzzo, those were not my maps I defended, and I came into the discussion after months so as to get the problem out of the way in a reasonable time as it was not going anywhere. Whether I made friends or foes, one style of maps was a common request and I managed to get that done: the conclusion was that D. Liuzzo maps passed though they could use improvement, and indications for that are presented in the discussion. Anyway, your maps still need improvement as well and former discussions should give you directions; I suggest to think them over very carefully.
- More importantly: you inacceptably destroyed content by removing the map_caption parameter (against the presence and content of which had been little or no resistance, only where to put the Legend was questioned - your maps do not have the latter so it cannot cause a problem placing it) instead of adapting it to your maps. I just did so on the Netherlands article. Whichever map is in an article, the map caption must remain and match the map.
- — SomeHuman 17 Jun 2007 18:13 (UTC)
- I welcome and will deliberate commentary on my maps, but your commentary begins with your belief/opinion to revert them. I was merely being bold in changing the maps, but to revert them en masse at this juncture is not. That is not constructive. In combination with the above and prior discussions, this leads me to the conclusion that a consensus wasn't really arrived at and a less preferred option was pushed upon the community -- you do not appear to have gotten any 'problems out of the way', hence this thread. I believe these maps address many of the drawbacks of the prior ones, but there's always room for improvement. Quizimodo 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're being unreasonable: One contributor deciding unilaterally without the least discussion, to force his own design on a multitude of articles, should not accuse me of forcing anything, let alone to do so for a less preferred option: it was the most preferred map style but there were opponents for old maps and for another style of new maps that appeared while a final survey was going on, and which had not been discussed and were not ready for all countries and not found suitable for several other articles. And I had properly presented and discussed a survey to attain a quick outcome of the impasse, before starting the survey, which outcome I only forced against one or two contributors unwilling to accept the survey's outcome after having attempted to sabotage the survey. The by them defended style had almost no support. Several other contributors helped to stop their final edit war. Without clear improvements to your maps and without discussion, reverting is the most likely and proper action: anyone can be as bold as you were and by now, it should be clear that for your maps, there certainly is no consensus and I doubt if they could get such without taking earlier considerations in account first. Meanwhile, either put proper map captions in (though it may still become reverted), or revert the maps and former map caption yourself, improve them, then present them at the community. — SomeHuman 17 Jun 2007 18:52 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not being unreasonable: I'm being bold. I've also observed a policy to ignore all rules when editing. And I am not forcing anyone to do anything: the maps appear to reflect many of the suggestions made during the protracted discussions you have directed me to. I have tried to be civil, but your commentary above has been rather aggressive since the beginning. I have no problems with enhancing the maps if needed and receiving constructive criticism, but much of the above from you is not and is merely opinion. Nothing appears to have been clear beforehand, and little more is clear at this point. And perhaps I will take it to the community at large to help clarify matters. More later. Quizimodo 19:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I decided to revert the Spain one until you fix them, but have stopped since there are just to many. AxG @ ►talk 18:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'll add the Serbia/Montenegro borders shortly. Quizimodo 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Response
Copied from my talk page to keep discussion from becoming fragmented. This was a response to my first note on this section. Indents are my comments. -- User:Krator ( t c) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- The colours are clear and provide adequate contrast, and are yet consistent with the majority of maps used for most other countries: throughout locator maps in Wikipedia, water is white, and land is green. I may consider recolouring; e.g., water to blue.
- I disagree with your assertion that the colours are clear. Consistency with the majority of maps used for other countries is not a reason to change the current ones without providing arguments why green is better than the other colours. I do not think green is awful, or a bad colour - the older map was just better.
- These are locator maps: neither these maps nor the prior maps are meant to (or need to) possess excessive details. The prior maps are far too busy and excessively complex. I can add the Frisian Islands; I can also add Ijsselmeer, but they yield nothing new about where the Netherlands are located -- as well, the colour and encircling on the world maps do that. Speaking of which ...
- Excessive details are are indeed bad. That is why the map does not show cities, roads, and railways. However, the shape of the country should be preserved, and a country should have its recognisable shape. This is not the case with the new map. Furthermore, the existence of the old map shows that it is possible to have a map with the same resolution, including more detail. It depicts the earth in a better way.
- The movement of the world map to the upper left is intentional: countries are a global phenomenon, not merely a European one. As well, the current map depicts the EU in relation to the world, while the predecessor does not. In the former, the rather minimal world map in the lower right occludes part of Western Asia, where territories are wholly unclear (e.g., Cyprus); also see the next point.
- With the older map, the world map was very functional: it showed the location of the larger area depicted, without distracting from the location of the Netherlands. The current one does. I do not deny that countries are a global phenomenon. I think that the older map was better at depicting this.
- The major function of the 'larger scale' is to include territories commonly reckoned in Europe (not only the EU), per the United Nations scheme of countries and regions -- by many accounts, Svalbard is a part of Europe, and Greenland (though generally considered a part of North America) is politically married to Denmark. Nonetheless, this is partially why Greenland is conveniently overlaid by the world map and, thus, taking advantage of the space. As well, those territories tangentially place Europe and its constituents, something lacking in the prior maps. In addition, the basic map will be provided, which can be used for other EU/Europe articles in Wikipedia.
- When showing the location of a country, political correctness should not be necessary. No one will need Svalbard and Greenland to orientate themselves, though they are indeed part of Europe. Depicting them on the map is not necessary, and takes up valuable space. The article is about the Netherlands, and that country should be the focal point of the map. The old map shows this in a better way.
- I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the circles, and may yet remove them; however, I hardly see how they distort the overall picture when they may aid in identifying smaller territories amidst larger ones.
- They are unnecessary detail. Why include a circle for the Bahamas but do not include the West Frisian Islands, to show the location of the Netherlands?
- As above, such maps do not need to depict, say, Santorini; yet, you can't clearly identify Malta on even the preceding locator map or (only after how many insets?) its own locator map (which will be updated) and is irrelevant to the issue of where the Netherlands are. As for its size, the more agreeable map uses an azimuthal equidistant projection, so the Netherlands (and other countries depicted) is no larger than it needs to be. In addition, I can generate maps in SVG format, but decided not to due to simplicity.
- Malta was an example of how the new map was drawn in a worse manner. The other examples, which you did not address, let alone refute, still stand.
Summarized, I am not convinced the new map is an improvement over the old one. It is of good quality, but the old one was simply better. And that is why I reintroduced the old map on the Netherlands article. Also, please do not try to justify reckless actions and unsupported edits by citing WP:IAR. As you cited being bold, I will cite another thingy starting with WP here: WP:BRD.
I have no intention of mass reverting changes to other countries - I am only concerned with the Netherlands article. Feel free to copy and cite parts of my reasoning in discussions on the same issue concerning other countries. Do wikilink my username when doing so.
-- User:Krator ( t c) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I will respond to other comments/criticisms tomorrow (as well as effect other changes), but I must clarify one thing -- IAR is policy, while BRD is not. A bientot. Quizimodo 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the new maps have some points in favour of the old ones. First, they do not require a legend as they use fewer colours. The legend text makes the (already way too long) infoboxes longer, so any map format without legends has my vote. Second (although they are now PNG) the simpler set up will allow conversion to the much preferred .SVG format. For the specific case of the Netherlands, I agree with most of Krator's comments, although the old map was far from perfect as well (e.g. using Mercator projection distorting Scandinavia and a random approach to depicting rivers) which is better in the new maps.
- The argument by User:Quizimodo that Wiki is not statis is a relevant one, and actually the opening for new, better maps has been explicitly left open in the heated debate on the adoption of the last change in EU-countries maps.
- I will keep a low profile in this discussion, but I would like to ask the creator of these maps to consider the technical request for good maps raised at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries discussion for the David Liuzzo maps. Arnoutf 21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have protected Belgium to prevent further reverts. I expect you will meet further resistance on other articles. If you continue to run up to three reverts, on Belgium again or on other articles, I will block you per WP:3RR. Efforts to improve are great; shoving things into articles without discussion is not. If you need to go to the talk page of every country to gain consensus for each map individually, then so you must.
Note I'm not an endorsing or rejecting the maps as such. This is a warning about revert behaviour. Marskell 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- SH's link to the WikiProject shows that there was in fact a very extensive discussion on the last change. (I had no part in it, so I won't offer judgements.) If you want my advice, it would be this: don't make the changes until you have a critical mass of editors agreeing with you. Not to hold you back, but you may have taken a big bite without considering the digestion. Cheers, Marskell 19:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Wider feedback" sounds so nice, while "reopen the debate" sounds so bad. I will mediate an individual dispute, as on Belgium, but I really have no time or competency for the larger issue. Look at that WikiProject link for the people who commented frequently and at length. Contact and ask for further feedback (two editors really isn't enough).
- As for your wider efforts, I'm sure there's a lot of areas you could help out with. Have you considered taxa range maps, for example? Other editors have done much work, but there's loads of species out there. I'm such a dummy with photoshop I can't even make one. Marskell 20:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note that I was one of the editors who commented on Commons. A short recap of the earlier controversy. You were right, in the discussion no consensus was achieved. However by aggressive editing and reverting by a (fairly large) group of editors the consensus to adopt the detailed maps was enforced although this was never reflected in a decent discussion (neither in the country project nor on a single one of the country pages). You may indeed run into problems wanting to change this, but please take care to keep within wiki-guidelines and don't lose your temper as you seem a reasonable person who could do much good to the wiki project. IMHO the map issue is one of the worst examples how bold editing by a small majority can silence informed arguments by a large minority (as you can see on the countries talk page) and I have (for now) given up in engaging myself in this issue, as I can have much more influence, be much more appreciated and basically have much more fun at wiki not going there.
Arnoutf 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- The "small majority" had presented quite a number of decent arguments as well, and the boldest editing came from an extremely small minority that was part of the "large minority", Arnoutf. Furthermore, it was not just one group against another. Several contributors had shown advantages on either 'side' and had pointed out that neither of the available maps was as good as it can be.
- Meanwhile there is a new map by Ssolbergj, with the by many appreciated colours and fortunately also the smaller image height of the D. Liuzzo maps (the height is a disadvantage of Quizimodo's maps, since many countries' infoboxes are already so immensely high that placing other than minuscule pictures within the articles has become a serious problem, the extra northern area does not appear to offer an advantage for any European country's locator map). Just on first sight, Ssolbergj appears to have used the proper projection as had on the Wikiproject Countries talk page been suggested for a future map, and I particularly like the inset of a globe which actually shows which unavoidable distortion to expect. Also another suggestion is fulfilled: it is in svg. Unfortunately it does not have the large scale base map (which offered the option of showing all the nice details of D. Liuzzo maps by a simple mouseclick) and it lacks the geometrical lines on land surfaces, which was perfectly done by David Liuzzo: hardly or not visible on the small scale shown in an infobox, but clear when shown enlarged. The Ssolbergj maps cut too much away on the south, the entire Mediteranean on the D. Liuzzo maps offered better orientation and allowed the maps to be used for Cyprus as well (though some might like it on a map of a Middle East instead of European scale, Cyprus is in the EU); I would even cut it just a notch deeper south, to allow the Spanish territory outside the West Coast of Africa to be just in the picture (that had been an issue for the Spain article). Personally, I preferrred the informative but to me unobtrusive detail of mountain ranges and rivers of the D. Liuzzo maps (regardless whether the river Meuse should have been on it or not) though this was for some an advantage while others preferred to keep the maps as simple as possible (like Ssolbergj's and Quizimodo's maps), from which I would conclude that the Liuzzo rivers and mountain heights could best become shown but with less contrast, while the water depths were shown with proper contrast. The latter is one of my main objections against the Ssolbergj maps: I'm not an oceanographer, but the deep and shallow water areas on D. Liuzzo maps appeared OK and had never been questioned, while those on Ssolbergj's maps are often in very, very different locations: they cannot both be right.
- Out of these three styles, I'm afraid Quizimodo's present maps are least desirable. Perhaps, Quizimodo, you could join forces with Ssolbergj and address some of the suggestions I made (based on quite a bit of experience with the various user's wishes about maps of this region, and with the major objections that may prevent a map to be accepted on one country's article or another). Above all, and a strong argument for presenting and discussing maps before enforcing them on articles [Ssolbergj's maps appear to be reverted by one user within minutes and Quizimodo's didn't survive for instance on the Netherlands]: nearly everyone in the long discussion had appeared to be in favour of using one single style of maps for an area of at least the size of Europe, regardless whether a map style always showed the entire area or would show a different, smaller, part of that area depending on the country (like a style that had Arnoutf's approval). For that aspect, I'm entirely on your side, Q: like the D. Liuzzo and Scolbergj maps, yours keep the same frame which makes it easy to spot immediately which part of the world is involved. The globe on the Scolbergj maps may have the advantage, in case it becomes used for many or all countries, that one might design a map for a small region with a less wellknown outer frame while the cut-out on the globe would still intuitively show where the region is: the globe can be turned and hence takes less room for a still sufficiently detailed positioning of a small region. It offers opportunities for later developments. The globe appears to be more easily moved to any area within the frame while still being immediately distinguished from the flat map.
- Kind regards. —
SomeHuman
19 Jun
2007 00:03 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments; please note I have provided feedback on the country wikiproject page regarding the newer (and older) maps. They are not perfect, but are a welcomed innovation which I am sure we can build upon. Quizimodo 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note that I was one of the editors who commented on Commons. A short recap of the earlier controversy. You were right, in the discussion no consensus was achieved. However by aggressive editing and reverting by a (fairly large) group of editors the consensus to adopt the detailed maps was enforced although this was never reflected in a decent discussion (neither in the country project nor on a single one of the country pages). You may indeed run into problems wanting to change this, but please take care to keep within wiki-guidelines and don't lose your temper as you seem a reasonable person who could do much good to the wiki project. IMHO the map issue is one of the worst examples how bold editing by a small majority can silence informed arguments by a large minority (as you can see on the countries talk page) and I have (for now) given up in engaging myself in this issue, as I can have much more influence, be much more appreciated and basically have much more fun at wiki not going there.
Arnoutf 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I am about to block you per 1 minute to leave a log entry in your block log. If you find that you cannot edit after waiting 3 minutes, please leave a message here and I will manually unblock you. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK -- thanks! Quizimodo 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Your block log is here. The block should now be expired. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! Quizimodo 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The new set of maps like 'Image:Location Greece EU Europe.png' is yet not available for EU countries like Slovakia or Lithuania. Please expand your work to harmonize the appearance of the EU countries. Thanks in advance. Lear 21 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The present intro of the List of sovereign states says it gives information on the extent of the sovereignty of the included entities, but it does not really do that. I plan a revision of the entry by putting the list in a table. This table will have in the ledt colomn (nearly) the same info as the present list, but in a second colomn information will be included on the extent of sovereignty. I am working on that new list in user:Electionworld/List of sovereign states and plan to include your improvements of the present list as much as possible. You are welcome to visit the new version. Electionworld Talk? 12:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! I notice that you restored Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png to Coats of arms of Europe and Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms. Please understand that per terms of WP:NFCC, fair use images must contribute significantly to an article. The mere display of the image fails to meet this requirement. Per standard, the use of fair use images in galleries is not permitted, such as these two articles are. An article discussing the arms in depth would be an appropriate place for the arms, but not an article that simply displays them. I've re-removed this image, and another copyrighted arms, from these pages. Please do not restore these images to this page. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, -- Durin 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Quizimodo, please do not change the capitalization in the Dominion of Newfoundland article for the third time. Dictionaries either give the capitalized form as the only, or at least the often used, form. It has a very specific meaning within this article. For the sake of consistency it should be capitalized throughout the article. Is there a particular reason you want to mix the two forms within the article? Silverchemist 05:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't referring to you. I am referring an IP who was vandalizing the page. Chris! my talk 01:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i didn't add flags with the constituent countries of the UK in the List of sovereign states since they have less autonomy than most states in federations (esp. England, which has no autonomy at all). I do not object to what you did, but doesn't it mean that we have to add federal entities (50 states in the United State, more than 10 autonomous communities in Spain). Generally, thanks for your co-operation in improving this list. We now just have to wait for someone who will dispute the work we did. Electionworld Talk? 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm having another go at a one-thing-at-a-time approach to editing the lead, beginning with whether or not the first paragraph should be exclusively geographic. Please look over how I've shown the views given so far, at the
talkpage and ensure that yours is accurately shown by my treatment. Thanks. The goal, of course, is a definite result to build upon.
--
Lonewolf BC 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The set of maps like 'Image:Location Greece EU Europe.png' is yet not available for EU countries like Slovakia or Lithuania, UK. Please expand your work to harmonize the appearance of the EU countries. Thanks in advance. Lear 21 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. But to clarify my standing, I'll have a vote whether it should be federal dominion or federal country, but I'm going to be neutral on wether it's inclusion is necessary in the lead. It's too much of a kufuffle for me to get my head around, and I just don't have a strong standing for either side. Thanks for your work in directing this. -- Reaper X 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. --
Jeff3000 18:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Making threats of placing tags, and taking it to FAR are not constructive at all. Place those tags, and take it to FAR instead of just complaining and sticking to your own version without listening to others. At least there would be some progress. Regards, --
Jeff3000 18:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- This "Compel or desist" is a threat. Please follow no personal attacks. Regards, -- Jeff3000 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 22:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
TigerShark 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any additional benefit of your reference over the references already given, particularly the Atlas of Canada ref but I will not remove it again if you like. There is no need for a silly edit war. Work out a consensus first on the talk page. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? References (e.g., the Commonwealth profile for the country) have been provided which verbatim indicate the legitimacy and phrasing already in the article, despite opposition. Your edit comments are ambivalent regarding this and arguably disruptive. If you opt to willfully remove relevant citations, your actions will be considered vandalism and will be dealt with as such.
- In addition, since the burden of evidence has been satisfied on my part, which you saw fit to deprecate though your disruptive, non-sensical removal of said references, it is you that must garner a consensus.
- And, regarding edit warring, please practice what you preach. Quizimodo 12:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems Soulscanner has decided his original research is well founded enough to now insert it into other articles; read his latest edit to Canada's name. I suggest you keep that page on watch as well. Cheers. -- G2bambino 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography. I'm trying to find editors to adopt (take care of) the portion of Wikipedia's table of contents system covering geography. The main TOC page on geography is the List of basic geography topics. Would you take a look at it? Does it cover the subject well? Is there anything missing? Would you watchlist it, and help complete and maintain it? I didn't know who to contact who could stir the geography wikiproject to action on this. I've got my fingers crossed that it's you. I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 22:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss at Talk:Dominion before you revert again. Grant | Talk 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you understand why a US source is not relevant to a Commonwealth subject? Grant | Talk 12:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. To help move this forward, I would make two heartfelt suggestions: i) your repeated accusations of bias and "personal issues" of others with respect to the issue - whatever the truth - are not helping the discussion; and ii) on a few occasions others have asked you to stop making "linkusations" of bias, narrowmindedness, republican or anti-monarchist tendencies or whatever else. If others are making polite requests, it is worth seriously considering doing so. Best,-- Gregalton ( talk) 10:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Quizimodo. I was precisely investigating whether we may have some sockpuppetry here. Anyway the list is probably gone for good. Best regards, Hús ö nd 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I could find no blatant evidence that user 213.47.60.134 and user Lodp are the same person. They could be though, but I don't think it's worth taking them to WP:RCU. It's pretty obvious that the list was original research based solely on its creator's POV, thus chances for further interference are remote (blocks are in order for persistent disruption). Ironically, I don't think I ever saw a Barrow's Goldeneye. It's such an interesting bird, I can't wait to go to Iceland, when I'd certainly visit Lake Mývatn. :-) Best regards, Hús ö nd 05:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is more than a bit of a difference in the scope of the two projects. Category:Oceanography does not contain a lot of the content in the Category:Oceans, which are apparently the base categories of each. It might be possible to merge the two, but they don't seem to be really that closely similar. John Carter ( talk) 17:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's been proposed on the talk page of the the Oceanography project by me that we change the scope of the project, and probably the name, to include at least initially that the project deals with Oceans and Category:Oceans. As Oceanography is a subunit of that category, that content would still be within scope. Also, I've found in general that it works better to start with the larger scope, and then, as time goes on, specialized subprojects can be created. Please let me know what your opinion of the proposal is on the Oceanography project talk page. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 22:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made an arbitration request regarding your behaviour. Please see WP:Requests for Arbitration.-- Soulscanner ( talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I didn't have much to add to the discussion anway. PS- I hope you guys get things resolved soon. GoodDay ( talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Quizimodo, for re-adding my comment (though you didn't have to). GoodDay ( talk) 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The report against you on
WP:AN3 has been closed with no action as you have agreed to stop edit warring. However, bearing in mind that you have been previously blocked for 3RR violations, you are strongly encouraged to avoid sterile reverting and discuss edits instead. In particular, if someone feels that a section of text is POV, dubious, etc., then removing the tag and telling them they're wrong isn't going to get you anywhere other than into an edit war. Far better to ask why they think that and either convince them of your opinion or solicit a
third opinion.
Stifle (
talk) 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith on my part at the Canada page. Neutrality tags identify facts that are disputed. The statement in question is being disputed on the page that the statement links to. There's no doubt about that. I've put the tag on in good faith. I'm not going to get an edit war with you and G2bambino that will get the page locked, but you've been told the policy on neutrality tags. If you or G2bambino remove this again, I'm filing an incident report. -- soulscanner ( talk) 18:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. --
Jeff3000 (
talk) 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Care to go to the mediation request page for Dominion? Could us someone to support the request. -- soulscanner ( talk) 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you go to the mediation page and formalize your rejection of mediation please. -- soulscanner ( talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've filed an incident report about your continued removal of neutrality tags on the Canada page. Lets at least accept that we have a dispute about the issue. -- soulscanner ( talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yopu have been reported at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.-- Gazzster ( talk) 01:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Quizimodo, would you check out the Wikiquette. I'm hoping to broker peace among my fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay ( talk) 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's me again. I'm hoping you'll respond at the Wikiquette, 'cause by not doing so, it would create the impression of arrogance (and that wouldn't be of help to you). GoodDay ( talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As the heading suggests, a few things:
- First of all, you can't ban people from your talk page. You can certainly express a preference that they stay away, but there are certain situations in which you can hardly expect them to; one of those situations is when they open a request for comment on your conduct.
- I have, by coincidence, just now reviewed the actual conversations on Talk:Dominion. For what it's worth, I don't see much incivility there, and what little there is is pretty evenly divided between the two sides (a propos nothing, I also really enjoyed the discussion there). I don't think that your conduct on that talk page is cause for concern, and I suspect that other editors won't, either.
- What I do find to be cause for concern is your refusal to participate in any dispute resolution. If you're being unjustly accused of incivility, you should want the involvement of neutral editors.
- My advice to you - which you are obviously free to disregard, hence the term "advice" - is to head over to the RfC, express regret for your lack of participation in the Wikiquette alert, and accept User:GoodDay's earlier offer of mediation. I think that you may find that that even helps deal with the underlying content dispute, which you seem to be making little headway at. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Final comment: nothing that I said should be interpreted to mean that you're not perfectly entitled to remove comments from your talk page (it would be nice if you did so with more neutral edit summaries, mind you). My point was just that you cannot reasonably expect that editors will refrain from notifying you of RFCs involving you and the like (and really, would you want something like that going on behind your back?). In any event, best of luck at resolving the various conflicts you're in. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 00:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion of Kosovo
Could you help me on creating a map of UK that includes an independent Kosovo? They have formally recognised their independence. Bardhylius ( talk) 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
|
A
Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was
not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dominion. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
I have made an update to your map to include the Greek Islands in Image:Location_Greece_EU_Europe.png. I have uploaded it with the name Image:Location_Greece_EU_Europe01.png, I hope I didn't break too many rules. And yes, you can see a green dot at the far east between Greece and Cyprus, very close to Turkey. It's the Greek island of Kastelorizo. Arheos ( talk) 03:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Took the liberty to update your image, as I was a little baffled with the copyright warning of the duplicate-updated image and removed that (well tagged it as bad so it will probably be deleted. Hope it's alright with you, but in any case feel free to revert if you think I did something wrong. I only added the Greek islands and didn't change anything else. Arheos ( talk) 22:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you please do Malta as well? Thanks. Miguel.mateo ( talk) 03:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Map request Flevoland, Waddeneilanden and Zeeland
Hi Quizimodo, your maps of europe show the Netherlands without the substantial Flevoland province, the landmark Waddeneilanden, and one of the major islands of Zeeland. Is it possible to fix this? Thanks Arnoutf ( talk) 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that your graphic, 'Location UK EU Europe.png' is incorrect. The Isle of Man is not part of the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.175.5 ( talk) 12:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey I'am from Poland and my question is:Whether you can do a map,a like the Greece in Europe Union one,but refering to Poland.This is a large country in Central Europe.312 685 square kilometres(9 place in Europe) and 38 100 000(8 place in Europe). Nila1994 ( talk) 15:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Quizimodo, would it be possible for you to create map of Poland in the same format you made maps for other EU countries ? Or perhpas you could put somewhere source of the maps (what program did you use ?). Thanks, Kupsztal ( talk) 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers, it's been 10-months, welcome back. GoodDay ( talk) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm working on an 'alternate timeline' of Europe over at alternatehistory.com and althist.wikia.com, and I was wondering if you would have time to do an alternate EU locator map, based on the alternate country borders. I'm trying to create alternate country histories for the countries of Europe, and I'd greatly appreciate your help. Thanks!! -- JamesR1701E ( talk) 19:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- What you think about integrating "other_versions" in the decription? Example: File:Location Austria EU Europe.png. It would help to find the newest versions. -- Kolja21 ( talk) 20:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)