This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm not convinced that jellybean features which every multiprotocol client supports, especially those supported by a library like libpurple, need to be bullet-listed. Prose is just fine. A bulleted list of completely unremarkable, non-unique features is just puffing up the article, and amounts to advertising: as such, it attracts deletionists. I had prosified the list for these reasons. --Lexein (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Lists make the text more readable and thus informative. And I don't see any connection between voice (advertising) and form (list or prose). If that helps, I could rework this into table "Protocol" "Service Provider", eg.:
P.S.: I've split native and libpurple plugins as some prefer to avoid libpurple. Eg. in OpenBSD or ArchLinux (may be other systems as well, but I use these) haze plugin is not installed with epiphany by default. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No. These are still completely unremarkable features which do not differentiate this product from other multiprotocol clients. Prose is "readable." Tables absolutely do not make text "more readable" - where did you get that idea? Nobody cares about protocols - they are either implemented or they are not. Tables amount to bragging: undue emphasis of unremarkable features, especially features dropped in which were written by somebody else.
Splitting the source of the features (libraries) is fine, but I'm firmly unconvinced that any tables are needed whatsoever. This is not a technical article about those features, and they are not so complicated as to merit any such overweening visual presentation. I really wish that the differentiating features of this thing would get your attention, not window dressing the unimportant stuff. --Lexein (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Understood. So please feel free to join the protocol paragraph back. Or I could do it instead, if You think this would be better. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion moved
I moved the discussion on the GNOME proposal that was happening at WT:COMP to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnome#Discussion. I thought it was better to see the complete argument on the project page. I invite you to edit your comments to make sense in the new context, perhaps by striking out the "Anyway, could I ask You to mirror..." sentence. Sorry for the disruption. --Pnm (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank You. I would prefer to leave the discussion intact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Second Mile Foundation. Since you had some involvement with the Second Mile Foundation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). jheivtalkcontribs 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution for Usage share of operating systems
Dmitrij, thank you for calling to my attention the Usage share of operating systems "Usage share of web browsers"/median controversy. I've proposed that the median be calculated, but only presented as a line at bottom of the table which it is based on. See my comments in talk, and respond there with your thoughts. Thanks. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Browser share
I really do not appreciate your accusations on the WT:NOR page. I did not fork the dispute or anything like that. Get your facts right and even when you do get your facts right don't start attacking other editors personally. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
So You believe You did it right way? It's all OK to provoke an administrative intervention while RfC is ongoing and even DRB is called for opinion? I can and would like to assume the best intents of Your participation in the CALC policy change request, but You ought to consider the consequences before doing such things! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not know where you got that idea from. I have not done anything like that. Personally I'd have been happy for the RfC to run its course. And you should talk to people straightforwardly if you have a complaint not just start complaining about them. Talk about the subject not people. Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I must admit You are right here. I was outraged. In that situation I would better consider resolving this argument personally and concentrate on the discussion. I'm really sorry for my mistake. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I must admit I get annoyed too by things here sometimes. Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps if You were reading more carefully, national socialism and socialism in one country are fairly different concepts that actually don't have much in common.
And though I may be wrong somehow, I still recall Lenin opposing the idea of socialism in one country.
Furthermore, instead of arguing with me You would better find a related WikiProject and ask people there.
Dear Czarkoff: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, thehistorian10, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For great work expanding Galeon from a poorly referenced stub to its present much longer and better referenced state! Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry, I should have thanked You before, but I was a bit busy then. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No need to thank me, it's just a small recognition for some great work you have done - well earned! - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
3O listing
There's a request at the Third Opinion Project involving Talk:Dusha which could use the skills of someone who can speak Russian. If it's still there by the time you see this, you might consider it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Czarkoff. I think you are new to the debates over these lists/bibliographies, so you probably don't know the full implications of your proposal to have another RfC. Over the last month or more, there has been a long series of disruptions related to this and similar pages ( you can see some of the history summarized here). This same Curb Chain – who now wants this bibliography to be called a list – first proposed the deletion of several lists titled "List of important publications on X", partly because of the title. To improve these lists, we have revived an inactive wikiproject (WikiProject Science pearls) and have created a new one (WikiProject Bibliographies). The most important issue really the content, not the name, and we are trying to formulate better guidelines for these lists. If you want to do something to help these lists, you would do much better to join the discussion in WikiProject Science pearls#Proposed inclusion criteria than start yet another discussion of article names. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the full story. In fact, I would propose to link WikiProject Bibliographies to the RfC and ask everyone to go there. I'll strike out my comments in RfC. Sorry, but I have neither interest nor expertise in building scientific bibliographies. And sorry for my incompetent comments on RfC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I'm glad you see my point. As for WikiProject Bibliographies, I can assure you that everyone knows about this RfC. We've been through this before! RockMagnetist (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
You actually misunderstood me about linking WikiProject Bibliographies: I thought that it may be worth mentioning all that You've written above in the actual RfC section, as most incoming editors would be misinformed as I was. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
User Papaursa
Do you think Papaursa should be reported to the ANI? He clearly shows no interest in working along side fellow Wikiepidians, refusing to listen to any open suggestions, clearly this user values his own opinion over to those who have fresh ideas from what he says. I was offering some very useful suggestions at the WP:MMANOT's discussion page, as with the criteria as it is right now only whatever is considered a 'top tier' promotion is safe, whereas any other promotion, such as BAMMA and EliteXC are put on shaky grounds. He refuses to even acknowledge what I'm saying, going as far as saying that it is me who isn't open for suggestion. Now I've always had the best interests of all pages on Wikipedia, and I am a team player so I cannot see how he came up with that theory, just because I questions the criteria on WP:MMANOT, a page I should point out that HE created. I noticed that many of the users who offer suggestions always ask him, as if he owns the page, which is a direct violation of WP:OWN. No-one should have to ask for permission from him to edit the page, especially as it seems that he is the one with the final say everytime. Here is the last comment he put on that page -
'Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't.'
Now again it is like I said I've never had a problem with taking in other people's opinions, so this is insulting for me to read. I will, however, try to reason with a bit, if he refuses to listen and take in what I say, I may go a head and report him to ANI. BigzMMA 14:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)
Frankly, I'm not at all interested in nursing novice users, so I don't have intent to participate in this argument. Still, WP:ANI is not KGB, so go ahead and they will decide Your matter. P.S.: please, sign Your comments. That can be done with writing ~~~~ right after Your post. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:GravEngAbs. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on your answer in this RFC. It seems it is interpreted differently by me and User:Gerardw. Thanks. — ChristophPäper 08:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Explained. Thank You for this invitation. I would prefer not to watch the further conversation, as I'm currently focused on fairly different matters. Could You please notify me the next time my position will require further explanation? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Mediation
Can you please indicate here whether or not you wish mediation to continue on the OS usage share case. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Thought I'd let you know that I've moved Xxxterm to your userspace. It's a well-composed article, don't get me wrong - however, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we can't keep pages in the main space solely on the promise that they'll fulfill our inclusion criteria later on. If there are ever third-party reliable sources that come up, we can definitely look at moving it back to namespace. Cheers, m.o.p 16:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW, could You please inform me of the way such moves are performed? Where should I address my future request to move the page back? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
CSD
Why did you put templates that are in use up for CSD? --Guerillero | My Talk 18:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I put more then a dozen of templates for CSD as I believed I freed their use. Could You please point me at the used templates? They must get unused anyway, as they reflect the versions of software, which is versioned commonly within umbrella project. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
All the titles I nominated are released simultaneously with the same version number. Still all those pages show different dates (some people use the dates of third-party publications) and numbers (some of those templates were just not updated to show the most recent versions). So I linked Template:Latest stable software release/GNOME to all those articles. Nominations came as clean up. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see! yeah, I'm feeling a bit stupid now. I would have gone the WP:TfD route myself for those, since it would be easier to clear up any misunderstandings on forehand. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I went the WP:SPEEDY route because it's housekeeping. TfD is a far more complex process then needed for such task. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
FRS clutter
Thank you for editing down the template. My original design had it as a very simple message, as the edit history will show. I'm glad someone agrees with me. :) harej 15:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on the GA pass! - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Punk Metal
It does not exist. It is not the same as Punk Rock because it does not exist not because it is a different genre. --Jamcad01 (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments on your own nominations
I noticed you reverted my edit here. It's like one man, one vote: when commenting in support of your own nomination, it's customary to use the label "Comment" instead of repeating your opinion on the outcome in boldface. (This is especially true at Afd.) It makes it easier for others to follow the discussion, and avoids misleading other editors into thinking there's more of a consensus than there is. – Pnm (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's pretty natural that one would support his own request. If you look at the legislative process (or any other process involving voting), You'll notice that the nominator has a right to vote. That said, I did identify myself as the nominator right after my vote. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
it's a good point. I brought up voting, but the opinions expressed in an effort to reach consensus are not votes. Given it's natural that one would support his own request, it's redundant to state it again. For the same reason, a discussant's subsequent comments in a discussion do not repeat his boldface opinions either. I noticed the parentheses, and most others probably would too. I guess I could have left it alone. Sorry. – Pnm (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia struggles to be meritocracy, but in the end any voting is a voting. That's why I described the request in an unbiased way and expressed my position in votes section. My consequent comments were either not labeled or labeled Comment when I needed to draw attention to the changes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
fyi, in case you're missing it, it's {{humour}}. You might want to see the big picture.[1]Alarbus (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
What You believe to be Your {{humour}} (I really doubt it could be called so) just distracts; please consult RFC1855 for details. The big picture You've linked is a way too small compared to the RFD process to be even briefly taken in consideration. Please, don't waste others' time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't miss the fact that what I linked to is *why* the redirect was created. Alarbus (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
That isn't important. The arbitration and adminship requests are a side activity on Wikipedia (just like RFD process itself, actually), their importance compared to the one of content issues (such as articles, templates, categories or redirects) is zero. They can't serve the ground for this or that article, redirect or content template/category. That's why I said that this big picture is too small to consider. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that argument is exactly what underpins the issue I'm looking at. The redirect is obviously going to be deleted. Alarbus (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Happy new year!
we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Methodtalk 20:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
GNOME software versions and release dates
Hello,
I noticed you changed the versions and release dates for various GNOME software (such as GCalctool) to the GNOME version. Can you explain your rationale? GCalctool, for example, releases independently, and has different version numbers and dates. InverseHypercube 08:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! It was a mass action. If I missed some separately released software, feel free to correct it. Thanks for notice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Slovenian independence referendum, 1990
Thanks for adding a 3O, but could you clarify by what you mean by "official result"? To me this means using the standard result format, but I'm sure to Eleassar this will mean the opposite (i.e. this or this). Thanks, Number57 12:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but your opinion is not acceptable to me. First, I would argue that Israellycool DOES have reliability, as noted in his own Wikipedia page. Second, I would also argue that my edit is critical to the article, as it speaks toward Silverstein's lack of reliability in reporting, especially for someone the mainstream media often cites. And third, you think that A) the mainstream media cares about this (which it obviously doesn't, as seen from Googling for the incident) or B) won't practice "rally around the flag" of a fellow "colleague"? Take these into consideration, because I know you didn't originally. I am thinking of bumping this up to WP:mediation cabal, because I don't think I can get a fair ruling otherwise. DevilInPgh (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I took Your position in consideration when provided 3O. Go ahead to MedCab. Anything else I can help You with? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank You for taking Your time to leave this notification, but it isn't obligatory, as i have the page on my watchlist. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind. I'm not a native speaker and for some reason I was taught to capitalize this word. Sorry if such capitalization offends you somehow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Nah, doesn't offend me! I was just wondering if it was a how-you-learned English thing, or an ideological choice. (I know some people who capitalize "you" because they think it's unfair that "I" is capitalized and "you" isn't.) Is "you" capitalized in your native language? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
No, with one exception: in my native language (Russian) singular You is capitalized in formal writing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Ahh! Yes! I remember now!! (I used to take Russian classes a long, long time ago. It was really hard, but Russian was worth it! It's such a beautiful language) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Warlords
You probably won't be able to find the review online, as it was in a print magazine. I will try to get this to you, but it may take me more than one day to do this. BOZ (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail! I meant to get back to you sooner, but I have been busy and forgetful. I have e-mailed you the entirety of the print magazine review for this game. Any questions, let me know. BOZ (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikiwiki (2nd nomination), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please leave others' comments as-is. I'm sure you think they're much better with bullets than simply indented but it's really not your job to fix this. It's annoying. Don't do it.Msnicki (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
There is WP:MOS stating how lists should be organized and WP:TPO saying that everyone is entitled to clean up after those who fail to do the formatting right. It's your job to keep the format of your comments clean. As you fail to do that part of your job, I'll bo it for you. Furthermore, the text which comes before your comment is completely irrelevant in this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
How the hell is this related to my editing? Do You read what You link to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
From WP:TPO, which you cited but apparently didn't read: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."Msnicki (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Doing this actually produces three lists with one item each! Notice the rendered HTML in which there are as many <ul> tags as <li> tags. This can adversely affect machine-readability of the content if a continuous list is expected. Moreover in certain web browsers, the extra white-space between one singular list and the next can have a visually jarring effect.
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: [...] Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
Oh, how hard it is to read behind the first line! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." You've been asked to stop 3 times. This makes a 4th. Msnicki (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll stop fixing formatting breakages You leave around. It just doesn't worth effort. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Any editor who takes criticism so gracefully deserves praise and commendation. I wish you many more happy contributions to GA. Geometry guy 01:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually noticed the first review after I created a page. As it was declared abandoned and Philcha didn't react to the article's changes for long, I moved on. I would be happy if You took over review at Talk:El Chico del Apartamento 512/GA2 — for me reviewing articles about music turned out to be a hell. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing Amor Prohibido, the album which spawned this single. If the submitter is willing to wait until that review is over (probably a week or so to go on my side) then I don't mind stepping in. Some of my comments at Talk:Amor Prohibido/GA1 would relate to the single's article. Put the matter to AJona1992 and see what he says.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I found significant coverage that I was wondering if I could have your opinion on. I don't see why the article is titled PaltalkScene when no significant coverage refers to that name. By the way, I disagree with Msnicki's comment about you on my talk page. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this notice. BTW, I have all the discussions I participate in on my watchlist, so noticing me isn't obligatory. Regarding the comment on your talk page: unfortunately I'm prone to irritating others on topics I believe to be important. I try to control that, but sometimes I fail. Sorry, if I offended you somehow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Czarkoff. Thanks a lot for the second review of Tute. I'm glad to know you think the rules are clear. BTW, this is my first time I've ever requested a second review. Do you know what the procedure is now? I imagine I'm supposed to see through whether or not the nominator addresses your points and then make the final call on pass/fail? Or does your doing a second review mean you take over responsibility for the article? To be honest, I've gotten so confused and bogged down by trying to sort through that particular article, if you wanted to take it over, I would be forever grateful. Also, by the time I got to the Scoring section my brain got so numb, that I'm not sure I understand the Scoring section at all—which is to say, I'm not sure I'd be able to judge whether the nominator has addressed your two issues or not. Would you consider taking the article over, if you're not already supposed to? Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As I get it, you are still the nominator and I (and now the third editor also) are consulting You. I could take it over if you don't want to finish it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW, did you every have any experience with trick-taking games? I'm asking as I want to get, whether the complications you faced in reviewing the game are connected to the lack of such experience. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Czarkoff. Thanks so much for offering to take over. I don't want to be one to shirk on my responsibilities, but if you really don't mind, that would be great. In the past, I have played trick-taking games but not in the last several years. Usually it was a case where I could pick up the rules and stuff by just jumping in and playing (as opposed to reading a set of instructions). To be honest, I think I have pretty much figured out the rules for Tute, but not the Scoring section. For whatever reason, I can't grasp onto anything in that section that really makes me feel I can get the overall meaning. Maybe as you say it could be a lack of recent experience—and I don't remember the trick-taking games that I did play as scoring anything like this (but I could be wrong). I just have burnt out on trying to make heads or tails of Tute. The article has come a long way since I first started the review, and GDuwen has been really sincere in trying to improve it, so I didn't want to just fail it—especially if other people like you can understand it well. Anyway, yeah, for the article's good I really think it needs a new reviewer. I really appreciate you agreeing to take it over. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Good to have you aboard. I tried to address your concerns, and the article is ready for a new look.--GDuwenTell me! 17:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Czarkoff. You have new messages at Talk:Tute/GA1. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I don't know that there's anything in our MOS to guide us, but I'm hoping I might persuade you to rethink your practice of adding a reflist to an AfD. The problem is that they end up separated from your comments, giving the appearance that this is an agreed list rather than merely the sources you personally found persuasive. It also makes it more difficult to see when they were brought up in the discussion, especially when you edit your remarks to add more refs after they've already replied to. Though I concede I don't know that there's clear guidance on this point, it looks to me like the usual convention is to simply embed the hyperlinks into your remarks, quoting from the sources as necessary, but doing it inside your comment. I think it makes it a lot easier for the rest of us. Msnicki (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The initial idea was to collect the references altogether so the matter could be easier spotted by newcommers. I don't recall adding new refs to my previous comments (specially those already replied to, which I would consider a bad practice) and even if I did so, I don't see how is it different from adding new embedded links. I'll stop adding reflist for new AfD threads for now, but I think that the problem would be better addressed by rewriting the header in order to make it clear that the list includes proposed refs that may be not accepted by some participants. I still think that reflists in AfDs is a good idea. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't imagine you meant to, but, yes, it's happened. If you're up to doing a whole Template:Citation reference for a new source, it's probably more useful added directly to the article, giving only just the link in your AfD comment. I think you're the only editor I've seen doing reflists in an AfD. Msnicki (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That was an accident. You might notice 2 minutes difference between your reply and my edit. Still, I'll think of another way of adding sources if this way is that distracting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Why did you blank out those entries, please? They're e-mail clients. What difference does it make whether they have WP articles or not? - Denimadept (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Mainly WP:NOTDIR, though WP:WTAF also applies. The availability of unlinked entries provokes every e-mail client developer or fan adding his pet entry to the comparison rendering it yet less usable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You really shouldn't have closed this, as you were the nominator. The only situation I can think of off hand where a nominator should close an AfD is when the nomination is withdrawn. In this case it made no real difference, as the article had been deleted anyway, but I still think it is better to avoid any possibility of an apparent conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed it was speedy deleted on request of another user, so I decided that the discussion is relevant no more. That said, I see your point and I think you're right. I just didn't think about that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares
I see you failed the recent GA review of Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. For some reason I can't see your comments. Please give me a copy of your comments in detail to my Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Czarkoff. How are you? I hope all is well. Thanks again for taking over Tute. I really appreciate it. About whether or not the scoring section is understandable, if you could use your own judgment, that would be great. I have things going on in my real life right now that are draining all of my concentration and brain power, and as small a task as it may seem, I really don't have any extra brain power to think critically about Wikipedia articles. Hence, my current wiki-break. Anyway, I very much trust your judgment. If you think it's all understandable, I'm sure it is. Thank you again. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience and help while reviewing the article!--GDuwenTell me! 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
AfD
I could have been nicer like in other AfDs that you nominated, but it's just that it annoys me when editors add stuff that is not in guidelines or policies. Guidelines and policies have community consensus while essays do not. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
If you read WP:N carefully, you'll find out that compliance with both WP:GNG and WP:NOT only gives the rebuttable presumption of notability. That is a direct indication that WP:GNG is the bare minimum the article should meet, but the question of inclusion is not decided definitely if they are met. Though we had a kilobyte of general chat about inclusionism and amount of sources, the real important question of whether there is something to write about Meebo that wouldn't belong to social messaging in general was never discussed. Still you find acceptable to publicly accuse me of several rather harsh offenses (in terms of Wikipedia behavior). Weird. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I find it acceptable because of WP:N saving hundreds of AfDs that I participated in including articles like this one. I am not some newcomer to AfD. I have participated in AfD since 2008. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you find acceptable accusing me because you have passed more time on AfD? Pretty puzzling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I only accused you of trying to delete an article because of an essay (true) and that what you are saying is not in a policy or guideline (true). What you are saying is not part of community consensus (true). SL93 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, there is no policy or guideline saying that the topic passing WP:GNG is undisputably notable. Instead WP:N clearly states otherwise. That effectively entitles me to question Meebo's notability, and thus I do nothing wrong. And I'm certainly not very happy that you deny my right just because it annoys you. It's not fair. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You completely misunderstood that. In a rebuttable presumption, someone comes along and changes the consensus. In this case, you need to try to create a consensus to change the wording of WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see this quote:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.
So you think this is a suggestion that the presumption of topic's notability may only be broken by modifying WP:N? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
That sentence means that a topic is presumed to be notable if it meets WP:N. That presumption can only be changed by community consensus (rebuttable presumption) and not by one AfD. SL93 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You must be kidding. This phrase literally mean that when some topic passes WP:GNG it is presumed to be notable enough for inclusion in the form of separate article unless there are reasonable concerns about such inclusion. The wording "rebuttable presumption" means that something is resumed unless proved otherwise. So that was exactly what I was doing in the AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:CONLIMITED. Your concerns are not reasonable if you can't get community consensus not consensus in one AfD. You can only prove it otherwise if you get community consensus. Not just one person can change the guideline. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:CONLIMITED says that local consensus doesn't override community consensus. As shown in a quote above, the community consensus is that passing WP:GNG is not enough to keep the article. That is the literal meaning of "rebuttable presumption". That literally means the consensus on per-article basis, not a community consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Community consensus is that significant coverage in reliable sources show notability unless proved otherwise through community consensus. It isn't from article from article. Why do you think that WP:CONSENSUS (a policy) exists? SL93 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:GNG says that passing it is not enough. Could you please link the policy or guideline stating otherwise? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"This page in a nutshell: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making" SL93 (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
AfD is a process of establishing consensus on keeping/merging/deleting articles, isn't it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
SL93, Czarkoff is absolutely right. We just had a discussion on this. Notability is presumed, and other polices, guidelines, and consensus can determine when we don't include an article on an otherwise sourcable topic. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In response to Masem's comment which was removed - "It's not just about it being sourcable. There is significant coverage in many reliable sources. The consensus at the AfD is keep at the moment with only Czarkoff advocating for deletion." SL93 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm done responding. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that you were dragging me out throwing the accusation of improper behavior in the case where my behavior was absolutely proper and the consensus was supposed to be established. If the consensus comes out to be keep, it would be kept, but attacking me as a mean of making me shut up to let the AfD be a home garden of yours is a bit too much, isn't it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank You!
Dear Czarkoff,
Thank You for your kind review and all the help you gave me.... I was wondering...do you think the Article can make it to FA???? :) --193.111.221.60 (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no experience with FA. Actually, I would rather say no, as FA would require better referencing of plot (see WP:FA? for details). As I get it, the game's main selling point is the plot, so FA review would either fail or heavily damage the game's coverage. So I would suggest to stick with GA status for now. Though, when you come across the reliable sources on the topic, you should probably add them to the article in order to get closer to FA. That said, I really have no experience with FA, so I can hardly help you with this. If you want to know for sure, nominate it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is on Wikipedia for more than 2 years. There are 24 external references talking about Brosix. Many people contributed to this article in the last 2 years.
Can you please tell me what should be changed in the article so it meets the requirements and keep it?
Thank you.
(Stefanch2 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but I see only two ways this article can be improved: delete or merge somewhere. An award winning IM client with custom incompatible protocol? You must be kidding. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on latest proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article
I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of cleaning up the article to fix duplication, contradiction and bad chronology.
Here are my proposed changes. Please leave a comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed the prod from Zango Messenger. I added a reference about their lawsuit about being labeled spyware. Feel free to take it to Afd if you'd like. – Pnm (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we could save everyone's time by not going to AfD. Generally your views on keeping or deleting something are more strict then mine, so I expect my voice changed to keep anyway. I would just like to know your rationale for keeping Zango. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I started to procedurally nominate at Afd but realized I was unsure whether it should be deleted. The software maker legally challenged being listed as spyware. I'm guessing that besides the source I added there are others which discuss it, too. I'm not convinced there are enough to meet WP:GNG but I think there may be. – Pnm (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
My primary concern was not to mix notability with buzz. Though, I'm still not entirely sure whether I have a good reason to AfD this. It's on my watch list, so I'll wait for someone to AfD it and will vote in the discussion, but I won't start it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I'd say coverage in reliable sources is both notability and buzz. – Pnm (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Your 3O on us of Quackwatch as a source
I have asked a question about your 3O regarding use of this source in the Craniosacral therapy article here. Sunray (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I've asked a follow-up question here. While your point is well-taken, I'm not understanding why we need such a shaky source. Sunray (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, I'm actually pretty convinced that the MetaQuotes Software article should be deleted with a redirect to MetaTrader 4 (please note that I suggested merge by tagging the article accordingly), so I believe you might consider to revoke this barnstar. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you are the person behind that IP already (actually, a barnstar I gave you did a good job identifying you). And that was the only reason I actually started this review: working with you is a charm. ;-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hehe, well, thanks, it's a charm working with you too! :) --Khanassassin (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank You for the support on the sockpuppet case, since, I am NOT 7arazred (but I know who it is, and I am ashamed of that) :(. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanassassin (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't actually want to make any judgment on whether you are or are not 7arazred, as I know you as a valuable contributor with excellent editing habits; the historical details are not all that important. The real pity is that after my involvement with that case I'm no longer entitled to review your nominations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
There are reliable English-language sources which say that he went to the Commercial Institute of Kharkov (now the Kharkiv National University of Economics). There seems to be agreement that there is no question that he at least went to the Commercial Institute.
There are, however, reliable English-language sources which report that he went to the University of Karkhiv.
One reliable English-language source reports, or at least appears to report, that he went to both.
The Commercial Institute and the University were at the time, and today remain, unrelated institutions.
One editor, Trendorder2011, insists that the reports that Kuznets went to the University of Karkhiv are wrong: that Kuznets never went there, and that he only went to the Commercial Institute.
I and another editor have pointed out that the fact that one source says that he went to the University and another says that he went to the Institute are not necessarily contradictory. Under Wikipedia policy, except in certain exceptional situations, we take reliable sources on face value, and to imply a conflict here would be original research.
Trendorder2011 seems to be saying that there are Russian-language sources which either (a) expressly say that Kuznets only went to the Institute or (b) expressly say that Kuznets never went to the University (or both). He lists the sources that he means, and the source page from which they were taken, in this edit. Trendorder2011's English-language skills, though pretty good, are somewhat limited and I'm concerned that he/she does not understand the distinction which must be made here.
Trendorder2011 also wants to evaluate the sources, that is, he wants to say one reliable source is better than another reliable source and that we ought to only consider the better one. As I'm sure you know we do not do that here at Wikipedia except in some limited circumstances. If reliable sources disagree then we simply report the disagreement.
In this case this means that if the Russian-language sources Trendorder2011 is relying on are, in fact, (a) reliable and (b) either (1) expressly say that Kuznets only went to the Institute or (2) expressly say that Kuznets never went to the University (or both) then Kuznets should still be listed in the University article, but with some text saying that his attendance there is disputed. If they don't say that and simply assert that he went to the Institute without addressing the question of whether or not he went to the University, then to imply that there is a dispute over where he went would be improper and he should be listed in the University article without qualification. (If Trendorder2011 is trying to have Kuznets eliminated entirely from the University article, he cannot achieve that since there are, in fact, reliable sources which say that he went there.)
What I would like for you to do is to look at the Russian-language sources which are being asserted by Trendorder2011 (linked in this edit) and see if they merely say that Kuznets went to the Institute or if they affirmatively and expressly assert either that he did not go to the University or that he categorically only went to the Institute (or both). I'd also like to have your help in determining whether those sources are reliable. If they're just papers on a website, then they're not reliable even if they were written by a professor or other expert, but if they've been published in academic journals or through other mainstream publishers, then they probably are reliable.
If you're willing to do that, it might be well if you and I discussed your conclusions here on your talk page before saying anything on the article talk page or Trendorder2011's talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The first link in this post is a biography of prof. Moskovkin citing some references about Kuznets. The very first of them (by Moskovkin) literally says "virtually nothing is known about [Kuznets'] education in the University of Kharkiv..." in a way clearly implying that Kuznets studied in that university, but no significant details are available.
The second link is a report about Moskovkin's attempt at collecting information about Kuznets from his brother's daughter. The author asks about the roots of the "erroneous statement" about Kuznets education in UoK, but she simply answers "I don't know", which (given the verbosity of her other answers) I wouldn't even take for agreement on the fact. Furthermore, the claim about the statement being "erroneous" seems to follow from understanding Kuznets statement "economical institution" as "economical Institute".
The third link is an article which discusses in detail Kuznets' education in Commercial Institute. The University is named several times in biographical references of the other people mentioned in the article.
The fourth link claims he didn't study in University, but most of his professors were previously working in University.
The fifth link also claims Kuznets' Institute education.
Overall, these links could be used to prove the facts that Kuznets' initial higher education (1) was previously attributed to University and (2) now is attributed to Institute. The trivial original research helps getting the reason for the former attribution: University of Kharkov was closed in 1919, then re-opened and merged into "Харьковский Институт Народного Хозяйства", which was the name of Kharkov Commercial Institute at the time and a place of employment of former Univeristy professors. Since then those were properly separated.
I could write something to the article's talk page if needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The fourth link appears to be from some sort of book or journal, at least in the way the page is formatted. Is it a reliable source? Just to avoid misunderstanding, does the fifth link merely claim that he attended the Institute or does it affirmatively disclaim that he attended the University? If the latter, is it a reliable source? — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know these sources, and frankly I shouldn't as they are Ukrainian (though written in Russian). The fifth link doesn't seem to disclaim Kuznets' University background, and the way it is formatted suggests it comes from kind a fringe journal (in ex-USSR Gothic fonts indicate nationalist affiliation of the publication, and nationalist sources are generally full of falsification supposed to support false statements). All the sources come from some kind of publications, and sources 1-4 may happen to be reliable. I would also note, that Moskovkin has invested significant amount of time into researching Kuznets' background, which would satisfy expert clause of WP:SPS, but regarding the way he combines the facts I wouldn't use these sources to back up my position. Actually only the fourth link is really usable to support both the education in Institute and the erroneous nature of claims about University, but (as all the others) it explicitly states the lack of reliable sources on the question. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've summarized your findings and given a link to this discussion at the article. Please feel free to supplement what I've said there if you care do do so. Большое спасибо, and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems I'm not entitled to since that investigation case, as now I'm considered to be affiliated with you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, It seems like I caused trouble to you.... I'm very sorry, but I'm not 7arazred :( --Khanassassin (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You didn't. Simply put, the weight of my listing your next GA would be close to zero, as that would be attributed to my choice of side in that SPI case. I just don't want to waste your indeed high-quality editing efforts on proving the lack of my bias. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
PS I'll give the GA barnstar to another user; he made major contribs, and without them it wouldn't have made to GA! :) --Khanassassin (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The independent references added are, I think, adequate to establish notability - their products have received attention from PC Magazine and a range of Forex trading online publications. I'm not sure what your expectation for notability is, but they seem to me to fit WP:Notability "=verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources". However, I'm concerned that user Renat.Shafigullin is now turning the article into an ad. Apparently, someone of that name works for a Russian company in Cyprus as a Marketing Manager. And MetaQuotes is "primarily Russian, registered in Cyprus". Hmmm. WP:COI I think. I'm inclined to roll all his changes back. Thoughts? Argey (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I see no advertising yet, though the article is heavily unbalanced towards their products. The COI issue seems at very least very probable to me. You might want to tag the article with {{advert}} and {{COI}} first. I would also note that I'm not very comfortable about sources about awards in Russian: they really look more like paid advertising, rather then some real awards. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what the issue is on my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
So you live in Europe...
I have been wondering where you lived. What country specifically if you don't mind? I live in Iowa. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I was born in Moscow, Russia, where I lived until two years ago I moved to Herceg Novi, Montenegro. Based on your previous comments I believed you read my user page though. My identity is fully disclosed there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This is embarrassing, but I didn't notice that information until shortly before your response. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't see anything embarrassing. If you'll happen to spend vocation here, mail me! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your comment, I'm new to reviewing GAs... :) --Khanassassin (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and Dmitrij, You ever thought about entering the WikiCup!? - I signed up, am currently the Top 12! - You could go pretty high, so, why not give it a try? Even if You think You wouldn't come to the final round (which I'm defenatly not, and You can), it's just for a little fun, isn't it? Well, I hope you do! :) --Khanassassin (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
How could I forget, I still didn't thank You for the GA barnstar! :) --Khanassassin (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider Wikipedia as a mean of socialization, so WikiCup is just not for me. I'm editing for my pleasure and sense of making somewhat valuable input into preservation of current historically-significant events. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
What did you have in mind? --WhiteWriter speaks 19:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
redirect made
I created University of Mitrovica. Looks like ZjarriRrethues no longer wants to create an article there. It will be very easy to point the redirect to the appropriate article after the split. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I removed the entire phrase from the page, as you are absolutely right about that, and there is a good reason to have this redirect in case of any discussion's outcome. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmh
I've been in a bad mood today and yesterday, due to (among other things) my connection persistently crashing (plus there are issues with my cat's behavior, et cetera ad nauseam). So when I wrote that message, I allowed myself to conflate the disputants with the dispute.
I apologize for any offense I caused in doing so. I have modified my statement so as to more clearly distinguish between the disputants and the dispute (and I would have done so sooner, but my connection dropped as soon as I clicked "save" on the modified version, and it was several minutes before I could rejoin the network). The statement is still rather forceful, but it should be more clear that I am fed up with the situation, not the people. DS (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
As I'm suffering from the similar problems for the whole snow season (I'm in Montenegro, we have several meters of snow fall damaging power and connectivity lines), I understand your feelings.
I reverted the page to the last version of your today's initial comment to avoid others' investigations in its previous revisions. If you disagree, please revert me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
AfD and PROD
Hi Czarkoff. Awhile back you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for the comments, it's super helpful. If you want, I can keep you updated on any new tests we run or proposals made about changing the current notifications. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, once again + Bosniak/Bosnian issue
Hi! Once again, you chimmed into one of my reviews to help out! Thanks! Might I add, since I'm a Bosniak (from Slovenia), I think that the language is "Bosnian", bur a person with Bosnian ancestry is "a Bosniak". However, on Talk:University of Pristina/RfC: split proposal it says that "Bosniak" is a language... So, could you please fix that? Thanks again, mate! --Khanassassin☪ 14:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Someone added this list of languages in parenthesis without my eye catching it. It has nothing to deal with RfC at all. Once we've mentioned that, why wouldn't you vote there? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I will :) --Khanassassin☪ 18:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
3rd opinion
Could you comment more on your 3rd opinion. You seem to have commpletely ignored my imput without giving any reason. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:τᴀʟĸ 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I ignored your input because it didn't hint me any rationale for deletion of content. The proper way to address the issue would be to note that sources you cite invalidate substantial part of Bible as basis of christian ethics. This is my opinion on this question; if you are not convinced (and it seems to be the case), you might want to bring the case to Mediation Cabal, which may be a more appropriate mean of dispute resolution in this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What do you call, Fee, Gordon and Stuart, Douglas (2003). How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth? The proper way to address the issue would for you to first understandbasic Wikipedia policies. Frankly, your opinion is completely arbitrary and worst I have seen in a long time even for Wikipedia.
I think I will try just stop editing Wikipedia. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:τᴀʟĸ 03:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I answered your question about my opinion on your position. I provided you the path to further dispute resolution. I strongly disagree with your position and the way you put and enforce it. What do you want from me now? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please vote
Can you please vote at the Broken Sword 1 nomination for FA? I allready fixed the problem (in the Reception section, which seems to be the only problem), so I think it's ready for FA. Best --Khanassassin☪ 16:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I would, but this request is archived and thus is not supposed to be modified. You should create a new one for the purpose. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No, no, you got it wrong. It's titled archived, but it's still open. You can still vote. It was titled archive from the begining, it's still open. :) Best --Khanassassin☪ 18:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I see. BTW, I noticed that this article is still GA. I believe you should go through WikiProject Video games A-class rating first, as the named wikiproject has its own guidelines. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, if this fails I will, otherwise not. :) --Khanassassin☪ 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually I won't vote: I don't poses proper language skills and game knowledge to rate this articles for FA. Sorry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Umm...Dmitrij, is this you? Since you would never write: "to rate this game articles for FA"???? - As far as I can see, you have great English (except this sentence you wrote now). --Khanassassin☪ 18:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I make quite a lot of typos these days: for some reason I suffer from a headache, and it doesn't let me keep focused enough. I even stopped working on my future GA nominees. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I was just surprised since from what I've seen you have pretty much perfect English. To bad you can't vote, I'd really like you to... :( Hope you recover from the headache soon! Best --Khanassassin☪ 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to get rid of the article you can propose it for deletion, but please do not blank and redirect it with no rationale given. —danhash (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The rationale was simple: this article was linked form lists of OS, browsers, whatever... Still it is about a company, which was supposed do provide an "operating system" (?) behind iPod, though no evidence exists. I found no even slightest evidence that this company is notable, so I assumed that redirecting it according to hatnote was an uncontroversial move... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
An edit summary would have been good to explain the redirect, however the article has 5 sources and has the appearance of notability. I would recommend AfD if you think it doesn't meet notability guidelines. —danhash (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
ex-USSR Gothic fonts
"kind a fringe journal (in ex-USSR Gothic fonts indicate nationalist affiliation of the publication, and nationalist sources are generally full of falsification supposed to support false statements)" - this explanation made by you 8 February 2012 for TransporterMan's "Help" question was completely wrong. It concerns "Новий Колегіум" scientific journal[1] of KNURE which is obviously clear is not a "fringe nationalist source". By the way, Ukraine has not tradition to use Gothic fonts in sense you claim. Would you revise that assessment of source, please? --Trendorder2011 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't find anything about this journal in reliable sources. At the university I studied in this article would not be ever published. Though, as I said to TransporterMan, I know nothing about Ukrainian periodicals, so I can't judge on anything but what I see and what I read. Actually I came over quite a lot of fringe journals, published by educational institutions, in ex-USSR, so your link says nothing to me. You might call for opinion of someone familiar with Ukrainian scientific periodicals for a knowledgeable comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
But you didn't write to TransporterMan that you were incompetent in this subject and couldn't judge. Let's clarify the subject: you can not consider this article [2] as unreliable source. Thank you. --Trendorder2011 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Please, mind your language. I am not incompetent, I'm unfamiliar with Ukrainian sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. But so, you shouldn't write
"it comes from kind a fringe journal (in ex-USSR Gothic fonts indicate nationalist affiliation of the publication, and nationalist sources are generally full of falsification supposed to support false statements)" — User:Czarkoff23:12, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
as you didn't have reasons to state this (and this assertion wrongly discredited the author). Thank you. --Trendorder2011 (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Internet Barnstar
The internet Barnstar
You are getting the first Internet Barnstar ever for your great improvements on different topics and sharing too many watchlisted pages with me. ^^ mabdul 11:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. I saw the nomination at RfD that included the reference to R3, saw that a speedy-tag had been added since the discussion and jumped to conclusions. I must have caught it in the brief period between the tag add and your comment in the RfD. I am not sure that the page is speedy-deletable but do not feel strongly enough about it to disagree with you. Would you like me to self-revert and restore the tag? Rossami(talk) 04:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I just overreacted. I think we should wait for RfD outcome. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see Clear Books deleted after all the effort but it was good fun (up until the final decision). The decision has been made so the question is what next? I was surprised and pleased to see your advice on creating an article about Clear Books as accounting software. I really want to try and avoid the CoI problem this time. I was thinking that I create a stub Clear Books saying 'Clear Books is cloud accounting software'. Then on the Talk page list some of the references from the previous article to support that. Then try and avoid editing the main article any further. Do you think this is a reasonable approach?--TimFouracre (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The approach you think of is a known working model on Wikipedia. There is even a similar situation in one of the articles I'm involved with: the main developer of Lynx (web browser) is TEDickey, who nearly never edit the article, but quickly reacts and helps much on talk page. That said, I actually planned to write a draft about your program and either submit it to WP:AFC or move to Clear Books with WP:RM: these actions give a prior validation by community, which is a good thing in case of a name, which was 4 times freed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That sounds superb. I am more than happy to help wherever I can and contribute from the Talk page. --TimFouracre (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Palestine
Hi Dmitrij, thanks for your 3O on this page. Have suggested a redraft which I hope addresses your comment. Please could you take a quick look? thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again Dmitrij. The other editor has replied but unfortunately we are still stuck. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no need to copy and paste the entire set of NCORP guidelines into an AfD. Please refactor your comment. Gigs (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
RfC
Decision about temporary displacement of University of Pristina
If you ask me, we can wait about this as long as needed... Article is like this for quite some time, so little bit more will really do no harm.. I know that it doesnt matter any more, but i received letter from Serbian university, with their explanation that official name of University in Kosovska Mitrovica is also, University of Pristina. Plus that part from their documents about temporary displacement of the university... Should we include it in RfC? It may be useful... --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As of now the fact that both institutions claim the name of "University of Pristina" can be considered established, so I see no sense in adding another (apart from their site) primary source about that. And I see no sense in waiting, actually. When the RfC tag will get removed by the RFC bot, I will implement the split, and if the result will become the subject of controversy or malcontent, I will force the issue to ArbCom or binding RfC, because FWIW it should get finally done: 12 years passed since the event in question, so as long as this issue isn't settled now, it won't get settled in a lazy manner via debates on talk page in foreseeable future anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, at the end you are right... Articles should be created, and we will see what will be further. Anyway, i will prepare Univeritet u Prištini in the next few days... --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Clear Books, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
I was confused seeing this notice here at your talkpage, but now reading the CSD notice and the old AFDs I really think that would go into the category: 'gaming the system' -.- mabdul 00:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Apologies. I missed to spot it in the 'further reading' section. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
And I mistaken you with another editor, so please accept my apologies in turn. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Too many comments
I didn't realise that was bad form. As no one replied to my last 2 comments I have removed them. Is that allowed?--TimFouracre (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It isn't, but I wouldn't expect any complaints about that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out at AfC. I'm going to guess that you have been manually reviewing articles, because you have missed one little task which is not explained in the reviewing instructions. When you inform the author their article has been declined, you will get this template: {{subst:Afc decline||cv=no|sig=yes}}. The second parameter needs to be filled in with the article name like: {{subst:Afc decline|Declined Article Title|cv=no|sig=yes}}. Otherwise, the author does not have a link to the article. If you would like to continue helping out, I have found that Twinkle does everything for you with little chance for errors. I will try to work on improving the reviewing instructions. It took me a while to figure this stuff all out, the instructions have many holes in them. Thanks again for you help. :- ) DCS 17:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:SAL (easier to read explanation is WP:WTAF): the lists and comparisons may only include the entries we have articles about. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I really appreciate this move. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
And I very much appreciate your explanation. I understand not only your rationale better (and I probably should have asked you directly) but based on your contribution understand GNG and NOTE better. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to know my reply was helpful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
In particular I was having a hard time understanding a concession of GNG but an assertion the page failed SNG COMP. It occurred to me that I often feel the same way, especially about an item of popular culture. Again, I didn't intend to be "sneaking around," always aware that everyone can read my every edit, but should have linked here to the discussion myself. Hope you understand. FTR, I also agree about the No Consensus closure. BusterD (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no problems with others discussing my contributions without making me aware of it. In any collaboration project it is perfectly normal to question others' logic and seek third party's opinion on such occasions, so it would be stupid of me to get angry about this discussion being carried on without notifying me. Still, if in any other discussion you come across my statement that doesn't make sense to you, feel free to ask me directly, as that could save some time for all of us. Best regards! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Minor edits
Czarkoff the Mitrovica institution offers Serbian-only courses; the Pristina-based one has courses even in Croatian (Janjevci) among others, so please don't add ethnic divisions that are neither supported by the sources nor exist in reality. Btw since we'll have to rewrite the article, can we agree to use only English-language sources and not insist on the use of Serbian/Albanian sources that are (inherently) POV in most cases?--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 10:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I added nothing — only moved the text around. Not a single new word. Feel free to correct the mistakes: the article requires a lot of work. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Rewriting all sections at once will lead to a rather tumultuous situation, so I suggest rewriting it section-by-section. I'll start with the foundation section and feel free to add or correct anything that I might ommit or mispresent.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
But it cannot be moved. Some admin should do it... What will you do about it, or want me to ask someone? --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
But article archive does. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The article archive would be better moved to Universiteti i Prishtinës: this is the current battleground and the source of controversy. It's better to keep the history of University of Pristina (1969-1999) clean, as this article is uncontroversial and potentially stable, which is quite not the case for the rest of them. BTW, why does this edit history matter so much to you? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
No, its not about edit history but continuity. :) Yes, you are right, it may be so... I agree... :) Ok, great! --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Good afternoon. Would you consider retracting the poll in this section? I have several reasons for the request. First and foremost, meta:Polls are evil tells us to avoid them as a matter of course. They tend to discourage further discussion and polarize the debate based on the presented options rather than encouraging compromise.
Second, though, I do not believe that a formal poll is necessary or appropriate in this specific situation. If we can make a good case for change and if the proposed changes are not objected to in a reasonable period of time, silence implies consent (within reason). I believe that we have made a very good case to at least rewrite the description. (Despite my preference for deprecation of the criterion, I know there is not yet support for that overt a reaction.) We have posted the debate in a high-visibility location and have gotten good feedback so far. Other users are starting to overturn or refuse invalid speedy-deletions based on the clarification even without the formal change.
A bit more time and another explicit call for objections and I think it will be time to start the BOLD. In the long run, I believe that will be faster and more effective than an attempt to prove or disprove consensus via polling. Rossami(talk) 20:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to edit it as you like or remove at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. With your concurrence then, I will retract the poll for now and replace it with an "any objections" call. Rossami(talk) 21:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm completely satisfied with this edit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Good evening. I am currently unwilling to change the WP:R page because of the three-revert rule. In keeping with the spirit of that rule, I also will not solicit others to make a revert. I come here only because your most recent comment on that page said that you were "counting hours to do it". If you are deferring because of my actions, that would be an overly-strict interpretation of WP:3RR. 3RR is a person-specific boundary. I am limited by it (and in my opinion, Headbomb has exceeded it) but you remain free to edit as you see fit.
If I misunderstood your comment, please ignore this. Thanks. Rossami(talk) 02:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For fantastic and priceless help on splitting University of Pristina article! Thank you very, very much! WhiteWriterspeaks 11:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Like it so far. Typically, what intrigued me most was the image caption. Construction of Triremes was a serious business with its own industry leaders. Who were they? Can we identify notable businesspeople from the period, and explain why they were notable? Pythius of Priene and Pasion seem to me to be type specimens of the kinds of businesspeople that fancy themselves notable and usually are not. Yet these ancient businesspeople are notable. Part of it is sheer luck, of course. What is needed, more than anything else, is the judgment of time. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Category:Ancient Greeks by occupation could be used for this purpose. At least it reveals the ratio of business people and other notable people and helps seeing the reasons of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! You gave a 3O on the article's talk page in December, and it got edited according to it. Now the editor who contested this, has reverted to his version. Please let us know how You feel about this on the talk page. Thanks, --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
re: SALTing
In the Wikifur deletion debate, you raise an interesting point about the relative merits of salting vs redirects. I briefly replied about some of the history why the standard is what it is but you make me realize that circumstances have changed. I am wondering if we should pose a general question via Centralized Discussions to re-assess the consensus for SALT vs Redirect. Would you be willing to help me flesh out the relative advantages and disadvantages of each so we can present a balanced case for debate?
I'll try to draft something in a user sub-page later tonight. Will link back here when it's open. Thanks. Rossami(talk) 00:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Sure I'll help. Unfortunately I'm only briefly online now and won't have much time for writing until about 12:00 (UTC)at least though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
University of Pristina
If you came here to talk about University of Pristinaarticle split, please comment in this thread. If your matter is related to another issue with the University of Pristina article, ex-Yugoslavia-related articles or whatever else, please start another thread.
Hello. I just wanted to tell you that i will not agree on any non neutral situation regarding this split. Only bright new, 5+ uninvloved comments will count for me. Anything else would be poor, and unsatisfying. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your concerns: both current propositions are neutral. Regarding my understanding of your motivation, I am pretty much surprised that you didn't feel comfortable with DS's proposal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No, current propositions are ok, i just stated this regarding votes already in the talk page. Yours/ours proposition for RfC is great, and we are waiting new editors. Well, my only problem with that DS propositions is this: When we splited the Kosovo article, main question (and problem) was only one sentence. Who gets the "Kosovo" article? And best proposition was: "No one". It was agreed that "Subject of Kosovo article cannot and shouldn't be both Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" but it was also agreed that Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Up to some aspects, its the same here. Who gets the "University of Pristina" article? Per this logic, only same names in domestic languages is really neutral, up to the end for me... But we will see what will happened. :)) --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I am sorry for complicating thing, but i completely lost good faith in several included editors, so i really cannot trust them to be neutral in this. We should not include ethnic profiling in this, but sometimes that is real problem. I am dealing with that problem for long years... Wikipedia can be strong political weapon, and only uninvolved editors will not create new weapons, but only good neutral encyclopedic article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
From my observations, you are pretty much wrong. Eg. ZjarriRrethues indeed tries hard to maintain the neutral point of view regarding the issue (though I won't say he's successful in his attempts, he at least deserves some respect for that), as can be seen from many articles with no hot discussions (see talk:Siege of Krujë (1466–1467)/GA1 for example). Thus I would suggest you to stop commenting the discussion in a way revealing lack of good faith assumption on your side. Specifically given that such comments make the consensus less possible.
And I would specifically discourage referring to the "Kosovo" article split this way, as a it implies the existence pro-Serbia and pro-Kosovo camps and your participation in one of them. This, in turn, would be a good reason to disqualify your vote for possible violation WP:NPOV. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, and i am actually quite tired with this. I want to tell you that i withdrew from this split process, and i trust you to guide it as good as until now. Despite the Kosovo situation, i ma very sure that situation is the same here. None can assure me that, after both universities claim the same name, is the neutral for only one to have University of Pristina, while other is University of Pristina (Kosovska Mitrovica). My neutral pov is University of Pristina (Pristina), and University of Pristina (Kosovska Mitrovica). Equal to anyone. But that is me. Anyway, all best, and thanks for your fine views. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it should be included in several RfC subpages? not just Society, sports, and culture? That way the respond will be better... --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the review! I'm glad to see You're reviewing it! Best, --Khanassassin☪ 12:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again! Do you think I should add a free screenshot from Beneath a Steel Sky to the article? And also, I've removed the duplicate sentences in the two sections. Best, --Khanassassin☪ 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Template:?
Regarding your recent edit at Template:?, I figured you might want to take a look at thesetwo edits and make sure you took care of any stray cases. Ideally, the nonstandard uses should be converted before the template is standardized. Cheers, --Waldirtalk 17:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
EPAM
Hi Dmitry,
I've seen you have removed some links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epam
Just to understand it, why cannot I use external links in this content?
Generally because the WP:OR core content policy demands that the statements from the primary sources should be backed up with secondary sources. Furthermore, linking non-notable names to off-site locations is a spam practice that is generally considered unacceptable on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
GA Review
Hi! - I'd like to say that you said: "The statement "Games that use the Virtual Theatre engine can be now played on modern hardware using ScummVM" in Features section is not backed up with a reference to download page listing the games." - Actually, the ScummVM website doesn't have a seperate download page for every game - just one big list with ALL the games that are supported by ScummVM: And, actually, that is the page that is in the references: "ScummVM :: Downloads" is the name of the reference. Also, the YouTube videos are from TEDx's official YouTube account, so it's considered reliable. And, the change you made to the "solid/transparent" sentence works. :) - I have also deleted the list of ScummVM platforms and added the known authors to the references (except THE MAKING OF... Lure of the Temptress - Edge Magazine reference, where the author is "Edge staff"...) :D All the very Best, --Khanassassin☪ 18:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the reference to ScummVM's downloads, and it is problematic to me, as it nowhere explicitly states that all the games using VT are available. Furthermore, the fact that ScummVM provides the replacement interfaces for those of VT is in my opinion more important then the fact that games are still playable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's the only reliable source which I could find. - That's the problem... --Khanassassin☪ 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to find a way to solve this. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
As I got it, the API between Virtual Theatre releases was changes substantially, so internally different versions of VT are supported in ScummVM separately on per-game basis. Unfortunately gamers aren't that tech literate for a plain English description of this situation to be available somewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I think all the issues are resolved now. --Khanassassin☪ 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Please
Please, can we try to finish the GA review today. I'm not trying to rush you, it's just that if it gets promoted today, it'll appear on the WikiProject Video games tommorow. Oh, and it's my brother's birthday today :) Best, --Khanassassin☪ 19:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The timestemp of {{GA}} is 23:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC). Still I think that though the article passes WP:GACR, it isn't the best article you nominated. The stated goal of getting Revolution Software-related articles to FA status will have a long way here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. I know this article is nowhere near FA. The problem is that there's not enough information about it. But, this is the first video game engine GA ever. Still, thanks for the pass! :) --Khanassassin☪ 12:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've already reviewed this article and I've just finished the review of your another nomination. I think it would be considered inappropriate behaviour if I focused on your nominations entirely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Understood :) --Khanassassin☪ 10:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Smile!
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.2.110 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Czarkoff. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania! 22:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar in light of GA review
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your swiftness, professionalism, and expertise with reviewing Folding@home, and your extensive efforts in reviewing an impressive number of other articles. Well done! Jesse V. (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for the GA review of Folding@home. It really made my day to see it done and there was even a forum thread made about the achievement! I opened a topic on the Talk page which you may be able to help with. I noticed you wrote "this article imposes a substantial load on the reader" and I was wondering how I could go about making it more clear and easier to read, if that's possible at all. If you have a moment, please reply on the Talk page. Thanks. Jesse V. (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted your change to this template for now because it has broken usages dating back to its 2006 creation. I've also reverted your change to the template documentation, as I do not believe there is consensus to restrict usage of specifically {{y}} to tables; it was not created for that and has been long used for other purposes. I'd welcome discussion at Template talk:?. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Serbia under German occupation
Can you help again, please! Serbia under German occupation article have some serious discussion on the talk page, and i think that we should use same neutral RfC as we did on University of Pristina article. Please, check Talk:Serbia under German occupation, and help me in preparation of the RfC. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Ghostzilla
Hi,
would you have a look on Ghostzilla and do a big copyedit, please? Sadly I didn't find any reference for the Mozilla sue, can you have a look?
Moreover would you mind to give me another week for the XeroBank Browser? (changing the PROD dates) I know there are many useful references and it is notable. mabdul 00:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Per Mabdul's request. I have additional sources for Ghostzilla which I'll add. On archive.org for May 2004 and June 2004 lack a download link, but I haven't been able to find a reference for the mozilla suit. It's likely to be mentioned on some mailing list/usenet thread somewhere...though it may be lost in the digital domain. I haven't looked at XeroBank Browser yet. I'll make the additions this weekend.Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
You may just deprod it if you think it worth. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Editor Czarkoff,
You have recently deleted the article about IBA Group (ibagroupit.com). I created this article, I tried to wikify it several times after talks with Wikipedia editor Flowanda in 2008. In the article, I added only facts. And I kindly asked the editors to watch the page in order to edit the article when something is not correct. What has happened now that you deleted it and DECIDED that IBA Group has no reason to be on Wikipedia? IBA Group employs 2500+ people in ten countries, IBA Group's clients are based in 40 countries, and they are English-speaking. IBA Group has offices in the United States and United Kingdom.
Could you please restore the article? If YOU consider that "the articles fails (??) to reveal the company's significant impact on the history of computing", I can provide more links to the publications in IT journals that tell about IBA Group's contribution to the software industry.
By the way, some other IT companies that are engaged in software development (e.g. Reksoft, Auriga , EPAM, Altoros or SPIRIT DSP) are on Wikipedia. Does it mean prejudice against IBA Group?Belarusian (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again! In your GA review of Folding@home, you stated that "before applying for FA you may want to convert dates in footnotes to MDY format, as the ISO 8601 date format you are using is deprecated." Could you please explain exactly what format you think I should use? I'd like to get this article as good and clear as I can, so I want to use a format that's proper. I checked MOS:DATES which says "Publication dates in article references should all have the same format. ... Access and archive dates in references should be in either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD." Then Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style says "Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD" I trust your statement, but those statements from the MOS indicates that my format is just fine. For a made-up example of March 6, 2013, please clarify exactly what you'd like me to use. I presume that I should use the same format for the "at=", "date=" and "accessdate=" fields. Jesse V. (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Your format is just fine (thus I gave the GA status to the article), still aesthetically the single date format throughout the article would be better. Also note, that all numerical formats suffer from the ambiguity related to ordering (YMD/YDM/DMY/MDY) which may introduce some confusion. The case is worse with non-native English speakers. As FA review isn't limited to policies/guidelines compliance, I believe this point may rise. At least I would raise it. P.S.: |at= should contain the section heading you refer, which is the date in this case. Whatever date format is used in source it should be cited verbatim; this isn't related to date format choice in the article at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. So you're basically saying that I should write the date out entirely? Clearly 2013-03-06 doesn't work well in prose, so I should spell out "March 6, 2013" for the date and accessdate fields then? That seems to be the case for the FA Rosetta@home, but I wasn't sure if that was just personal choice. Jesse V. (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If you prefer YYYY-MM-DD dates, you might want to keep this format until FA review. If it would be considered an issue, you'll be told to fix it; alternatively, it can be considered a non-issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well this is the first article that I've seriously worked on, so I'm still learning. I don't really prefer one format over the other, I just want one that is clear. You seem much more fluent in WP's MOS than I am, so that's why I'm asking you. I think the article has reached the point where I'm not sure how to improve it further, so now more than ever I need suggestions and whatnot, and I'll be happy to take care of a to-do list or something. I'm beginning to think that I should write out the dates, but I wanted to check with you if that was the best and most clear format to use. Jesse V. (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
All right, so I've decided to write out all accessdates, and write the dates from the sources where I can. Where the source provides a all-numeric format, I'll copy that verbatim. However, I will be writing out source dates when its undeniable which format the source is using; for example the date 03/2011/20 is undeniably March 20, 2011. Is it all right to do this? Jesse V. (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome back to en.wp by the way. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! But what did you mean by back? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I originally posted just welcome but edited it to add 'back' when I realised you'd been around before - I just hadn't noticed :) I do have some sympathy with the digraph's issue, maybe later when all the wps have upgraded. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
10 years ago only Linux people on then experimental UTF-8 locales could use Unicode digraphs; now they are available to all of us, but not as widely used as they should. Still, some of us here on Balkan use them, and get pretty frustrated and de-motivated when hitting "Start the [...] article" prompt. Thus I though that either redirects or page moves (with redirects, of course) would help, and (as page move is more controversial) I started this RM to probe for a solution most of community will feel more comfortable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure it was a reasonable way to go, RM. But evidently sh. hr. sr. bs. wp need convincing too. Besides when we have disasters like Talk:Ana Ivanovic, en.wp just isn't ready. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
sh., hr., sr. and bs. won't accept it before en. Native speakers learned to type char sequences in place of digraphs and only (relatively) recently have started slowly moving from their already acquired skills towards proper Unicode. Here, on en. most people have no muscle memory of typing "nj", thus en. is less prone to inertia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Croatian collation
You wrote that you wanted a starting point for further investigation. I don’t know exactly what aspects you want to investigate, but here are some resources that might be of interest:
You're invited to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Belgrade, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the University of Belgrade. To accept this invitation, click here! Articles related to other universities in Belgrade, Serbia and Southeast Europe may be discussed as well. This helps share information and foster knowledge about higher education in the region.
Sorry, I'm not knowledgeable enough on topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Czarkoff,
Yes, Herceg Novi are close in proximity to one another, but they are in fact two separate towns. The Igalo picture should be on the Igalo Wikipedia page to avoid confusion. Please let me know if you disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anja888 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You PRODed this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Owl Dashboard Screenshot Black.png
See my comments at this file's log. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused why you've removed the list of awards from the Support section. The list includes extensive examples from very notable, independent sources that are recognized around the world (for example: the World Economic Forum, Fast Company, Business Week, Sir Richard Branson). Can you explain? Perhaps it was the list format that made this unacceptable but I think that for this particular company, these references are meaningful and profound.Stephenpnock (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Awards don't help with determining notability, as much as press releases, announcements, stock reports, client lists and lists of acquisitions. You may read WP:NCORP on which organizations are considered notable and which are not, but as general rule the organization must make significant worldwide impact on humanity. On the opposite, awards are issued on the regular basis by thousands of associations, agencies and other bodies on yearly basis, totaling in huge amount of awards winners, exceeding any business directory ever existing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-officeconnect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Hi Czarkoff, Thanks for your review on Articles for creation/Review Raja. I have few concerns about your points. There were references from 3 different newspapers provided which shows the subjects notability. The subject is in no way related to the newspapers and his works were not published on them. I think the sources are independent of the subject. I request you to check the references again for conclusion.Kirukp (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
These references show only local notability, so the global impact of the topic is not evident. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! The general idea is that all the text you place in the article must be verifiable: any reader should have an option to look up the proof of the statement, and you have to provide inline citations to make the sources of your claims easy to identify.
Furthermore, the topic of the article should meet the requirement of notability to be mentioned in the Wikipedia at all. If you are familiar with concept of presumption of guilt, you may describe this policy as a presumption of lack of notability: unless you demonstrate that reliable sources of information, that are by no means connected to the topic, cover it in significant detail, the topic won't be considered worth the inclusion.
You might have noticed the Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners link in the submission template. It gives the general overview of how you can attribute the content to the sources of your knowledge. Note: most of editors will expect the use of special templates for formatting your references, eg. Help:Citation Style 2.
Sorry, but to make us a favor of contributing content to Wikipedia, you have to do much reading. Please, make yourself familiar with the documents I've linked above. If something remains unclear to you, you can ask your questions by placing a new section on your talk page and using {{help me}}. Or just ask me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Clozette References
I just want to ask what is missing on my references. I already included references from newspapers, radio and tv. thank you! Fasyonabol (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The missing thing is demonstration of notability: you rely on Top N lists and routine reports on revenues and deals, while those don't count. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you give me an example? Fasyonabol (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
of references that demonstrate notability related to Clozette. Fasyonabol (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I doubt those exist in the first place. You may want to repurpose your article on a service instead of company: if done so, you'll have to qualify for much less strict criteria of WP:NWEB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In fact the advertisement agency can only be found notable if it invents some new means of advertising or some new business practices. Otherwise it is a WP:MILL case and should not be included per WP:NOT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If this is the case , then I can provide 1000's of articles on wikipedia , who are not at all notable and are still published from last one year , for example Red Aril, like this there are so many. At least I have provided the links from forbes , timesofindia and other fruitful news agencies.--Winchetan (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This link is even dead Mashable#cite_note-Huff-9, I am not able to find the mashables history anymore on this page. Then this company is also not a notable company.Please remove it from wikipedia. --Winchetan (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll initiate the process once I'll have time for it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
So Can I resubmit my article again ? --Winchetan (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure you can. Personally I see no way I would accept it, but you may have more luck with other AFC reviewers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks , but I have reconstructed the article by taking other links.And if this is the reason, Red Aril this page was orphan , my article provides the link to this article and few others.So I guess my submission is correct ,now you can see the citation from 6 to 9. Are they worth ? And my question is if the organization itself is not notable then why wikipedia's other pages have the name of such organization on their page.
Your guidance would be helpful , I want to submit the good links now.--Winchetan (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This company is also not a notable company. AdBrite Please queue it up for the not notable company.--Winchetan (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Invalid link ZocDoc#cite_note-1 for the organization ZocDoc which contains the description about the CEO and the staff , so as per wikipedia's rule , it is not valid. --Winchetan (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks , I have included the wiki links too to prove the notability of the organization. Apologies for arguments , but I guess my points are true. --Winchetan (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, ZocDoc appears to be a notable service. I rewrote the article to avoid the focus on company, and I believe it is fairly acceptable now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I think , I can keep you posted here about the companies which are not notable and needs removal . :)
BTW , I have updated my article gave new citations from techcrunch , which neither includes CEO nor staff and it is written by the journalists.--Winchetan (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Czarkoff. I just did quite a few hours of work on my article cleaning up citations and references and I hope you can look it over again. I was able to remove all links to the www.wison.com website and replaced them with secondary source journal articles on the company. These really helped! I hope these secondary sources will help me with my submission. Let me know if there is anything else I can work on. Any suggestions? RossPKelley (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Reliable source, but the mention is too brief, lacks depth of coverage. Profiles, phone book entries, etc. don't demonstrate notability.
What does this mean at all?
Press release — bad source.
Wiki (unreliable).
What is this?
Publishes users' submissions, seemingly paid PR service — bad source.
Wiki (unreliable).
Publishes users' submissions, seemingly paid PR service — bad source.
What does this mean?
Press release — bad source.
Press release — bad source.
What is it?
Press release — bad source.
Reliable source, but the mention is too brief, lacks depth of coverage.
Has no text to verify anything.
User-submitted entry, unreliable
Wiki (unreliable).
Reliable source, no flaws.
Press release — bad source.
Reliable source, no flaws.
The sources marked in red should be just removed — your article has no chances with them. Sources marked with italics should be properly linked. Green sources are OK. I would suggest you using Citation Style 2 to format references, to avoid what is it??? problem in future.
Still, no single source of these suggests that the topic of your article is notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Czarkoff,
Thank you very much for your help. I have deleted every source you said was bad and i understand why. I was able to write the article using the four sources you said were legitimate, delete some information, and use 10 new, independent sources to write the article. I believe you should find them all satisfactory. They all show an author to the article, they are not press releases, and each is attached to a bit of information in the article that is in the cited pages.
On the point of notability, I am using the following paragraph from Wikipedia to assess my article.
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization or product."
While you stated that no single article shows notability, I believe the mix of international coverage, across multiple industries and writers, shows that the company is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. As specifically noted in the projects section, the company also has introduced new technologies to the world and partnered with many significant companies in Korea, America, and Germany.
Let me know what you think of the new sources and my argument for notability. I look forward to hearing from you. RossPKelley (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The notability problem I see here is that the topic of your article – Wilson Group – should be notable itself; its notability shouldn't be inherited from its subsidiaries and divisions unless they are shown to be indistinguishable from Wilson Group. On contrary, most of the sources discuss the subsidiaries as separate entities. Though I'm pretty confident that your considerable efforts should be awarded by some action-stlye admission, I can't see any policy-based way of doing so.
Still, as I am not the only AfC stalker here and you addressed the concerns by other reviewers, you might want to re-nominate your submission in order to get an opinion by another editor. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I blanked the previous comments and 'decline' templates on your submission. As I maintain quite restrictive understanding of WP:NCORP, I personally just can't accept it, though I'm pretty confident that I did all to help the next reviewer avoid any prejudice regarding previous judgments on your submission. It's all I can do for you currently, I'm afraid. Good luck! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the infobox is a tool for summarizing the content of the article, and as such it shouldn't contain any references. You might want to make sure that all the information presented there is available in the article's body and remove the references from the infobox itself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you rejected this article because of insufficient references, but i have put in 30 references, which is wayyy more than any civil engineering firm' page i could think of. Also, almost all the references are third part references!!There is no paragraph in the article which is without references, and some instances have multiple references!!! Assuming that you have little or no understanding of civil engineering, but structurae.com is a universal reference in the civil engineering world, and i have included many references from structurae!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkutumbale (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note, that reference should not only be third party, but also reliable. While we are on it, please use citation templates to format your footnotes, as plain urls are both prone to linkrot and difficult to navigate between efficiently. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
DRN: volunteer?
Hey, Czarkoff, I saw you helping out with the "Afro-textured hair" thing on the DRN; have you considered signing up as a volunteer? It helps the new DRN bot do its thing, and I think it'll help Steve do his thing, too. (I only just signed up, myself!) Writ Keeper⚇♔ 01:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Heh, didn't notice that it was alphabetical, so I just glanced at the bottom. My name's at the bottom either way, I guess. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔ 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
With my user name being only the last part of the screen name I am difficult to notice in any list. :-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Help needed with afro Talk
Hi. You indicated that the RfC questions are not quite accurate. Could you help out on the article Talk page and suggest a better framing of the issue? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the MirrorLink draft article (AfC) is now updated and the lesser reliable citations and sources have been replaced with more notable ones. A quick review and approval would help put this highly notable topic on the wiki. Look forward to a quick review and feedback. -Ambar (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikiwiki (2nd nomination), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please leave others' comments as-is. I'm sure you think they're much better with bullets than simply indented but it's really not your job to fix this. It's annoying. Don't do it. Msnicki (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikiwiki (2nd nomination), you may be blocked from editing. You've been cautioned once. That should be enough. Please stop at once. Msnicki (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
