User talk:Bondkaka

Welcome!

Hello, Bondkaka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Saint Petersburg Dam, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Monument to Nicholas I, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Tullgarn Palace, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulriksdal Palace[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ulriksdal Palace, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the nomination --Samir धर्म 04:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry[edit]

I should've explained better. The different names of the province are already in the first sentence of the article, and it has been agreed upon. Now, the problem is that you put the Albanian name for Kosovo first, and then the Serbian name, at the end the English name. Lets not forget that Kosovo is in Serbia, and the first official language is Serbian. But, the majority of Kosovo is Albanian, and they consider the first official language to be Albanian. Instead of fighing about this, we have agreed that Albanian will come first in the article, but only "Kosovo" will describe the infobox, as to not leed to further edit wars. Its a minor detail, but I would appreciate that you don't start a conflict if its not absolutely neccessary, and I think that, in this case, it would just be easier to leave it as it is. Deal? All the best, --serbiana - talk 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was blocked for a long time and we finally came to a decision on some things recently. It's just a sensitive issue, and vandalism is expected, but we are here to prevent and control it. --serbiana - talk 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholms Enskilda Bank[edit]

Did you know? was updated. On 28 July, 2006, a fact from the article Stockholms Enskilda Bank, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the nomination! -- Samir धर्म 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monument to Alexander II (Moscow)[edit]

Did you know? was updated. On 21 August, 2006, a fact from the article Monument to Alexander II (Moscow), which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the nomination! -- Samir धर्म 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

polemical[edit]

the word you are searching for is 'polemic'. ... aa:talk 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Update[edit]

Thanks for putting some noms in next update, but could you take them from the 2nd while they are still valid, rather than working a day ahead. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 17:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - could you leave the spelling as it stands - i.e. if its in Commonwelath English, don't change it to American English. (More MOS information here if needed [1]) thanks 86.133.246.184 17:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Oh - i should have said - in reference to the levee of Louis the somethinghth article[reply]

DYK[edit]

Did you know? was updated. On 8 March, 2007, a fact from the article Ivan Safronov, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 18:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

I replaced one entry in order to be able to include an older one. See KNM's comments on my talk page for more information.-- Carabinieri 11:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, more or less. But it's not unusual to use noms that are a day expired. In this case there were two reasons why the nom wasn't used earlier, which also have to be considered: for one, the entry had an image attached to it and we had way too many image entries anyway; and I suggested a re-formulation of the entry, which prevented other editors from including in order to give people time to review my suggestion.-- Carabinieri 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot start your own rues by exchanging nominations which are about to expire with exipried nominations. If a dispute is resolved, the article has another 5 days to make it. Bondkaka 11:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a rule that states that an article has another five days once a dispute has been resolved. I don't think there's anything wrong with bending the rules in certain cases, especially in cases like this one. Russian legislative election, 1906 can be used the next time DYK is updated.-- Carabinieri 12:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Our edits clashed, I was in the process of updating the template, when your edit came in. I've reverted yours, since there was only space on the main page for one more entry instead of the two you added. Hope you don't mind. If you drop by later, we can hopefully still include the suggestions you wanted to use in another update today. (Next time you go in for an update, it's probably a good idea to check if someone else is already working on it) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batu Lintang camp[edit]

Thanks you for your kind words, Bondkaka. I appreciate it - but can't take sole credit - I had a huge amount of help from User:Grant65, who specialises in the Pacific War (amongst very many other things). About maps: I have three different versions, the first two of which are very similar but have slight differences in the information given: one is in Ooi Keat Gin's 1996 Japanese Empire in the Tropics: Selected Documents and Reports of the Japanese Period in Sarawak, Northwest Borneo, 1941-1945 Ohio University Center for International Studies, Monographs in International Studies, SE Asia Series 101 (2 vols) ISBN: 0-89680-199-3 on page 139 (he has drawn it from two earlier sources which I don't have access to just yet); the second is online (yay!) at http://www.far-eastern-heroes.org.uk/Baldwin/html/war.htm (scroll down a bit past the sketch location map to a more deatiled plan of the camp layout). I would have loved to put it in the article but don't know where it originally came from or what the copyright status is. The third is one I have saved on my computer from a website I visited long ago, way before I thought about writing this page. I stupidly didn't make a record of where I got it from and I can't find it again. Doh! It seems to have been made earlier in the life of the camp as it shows a smaller area. And as for escape attempts - I haven't found any records of any in my brief survey. That's not to say there weren't any, of course ... ;) Jasper33 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Did you know? was updated. On 27 March, 2007, a fact from the article Olympic Theatre, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? was updated. On 27 March, 2007, a fact from the article Forehead lift, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 12:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varvara Nikolaevna Yakovleva[edit]

Did you know? was updated. On 27 March, 2007, a fact from the article Varvara Nikolaevna Yakovleva, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK update[edit]

Just a heads up - four out of five of the topics are on US subjects. There are plenty of topics from other parts of the world on the April 3 page that could be chosen instead. I'm getting a bit fed up with the US-centrism on the front page, and then when people complain, they're told it's down to systemic bias. I would add that it's not just that - editors choosing the DYK are showing preferences too, and ignoring what the rules and regulations state about not choosing too many topics from one country. 86.140.130.145 17:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one "non-US" eligible nomination left from April 3, and that's an architectural article, which competed against another architectual article from the same country. Bondkaka 17:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move request notification[edit]

This message serves to notify you that I have filed a request to have the article ICA Meat Cheat Scandal moved back to ICA meat repackaging controversy. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ICA Meat Cheat Scandal#Requested move. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Serbia[edit]

Why are you calling me names? No matter that a question mark is beside the characteristic. A compromise had been reached on the discussion page. The users couldn't agree which of the two designs of the Flag of Serbia would be first, and decided that one would be portrayed left and one right - evening the plain - so to speak. I have just reverted to that state in which the article was before and added some facts (with a reference). I think that this is not a good way to solve problems - by using a one mold for all cases. -- Imbris (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The order of flags generally is National Flag first, State Flag second. In Serbia that is not clear but the Constitution of Serbia ordered in this way. I don't know why anyone should object. -- Imbris (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Walsh-Smith[edit]

Hi, please read my comment again, I linked it to WP:BLP1E. And please note that the template was already updated, and your revert just completely removed the suggestion. - Bobet 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked, because it is believed to be a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Used to present a show of support in discussions to the puppeteer account User:Camptown, which is specifically barred by the policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Please see contribs to WP:ITN/C, to T:DYK/N and to other talk pages. - Bobet 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Raalogg.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Raalogg.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]