User talk:TadejM/Archive 4

Road/Street

Hi, I've changed Slovenian Road to Slovenian Street at the Ljubljana article. I just wanted to provide more info here because the edit summary line isn't really sufficient. I've got a file somewhere on this (that I still can't put my finger on), but I can look for it if needed. Anyhow, English road/street generally corresponds to a rural/urban distinction. There are exceptions in BrE (e.g., Hackney Road); but many of these are probably historical accident and the result of urban expansion. Regarding ulica/cesta, these by and large correspond to older Gasse/Strasse, which were presumably based on size (rather than being arterial or not); the typical English street/avenue pair also can't be meaningfully applied to distinguish between ulica/cesta because street/avenue generally have a perpendicular contrast, whereas ulica/cesta is much more random. All in all, I've found it more useful to render both ulica and cesta as street without trying to make a systematic difference in English between the two. Doremo (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's ok for me. I just hope it is the most prevalent and unambiguous name too (due to WP:AT). Slovenian Street is also a street in Murska Sobota, although I'm not sure whether it deserves being discussed in Wikipedia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added the native street names at first mention (since there aren't any articles for them to link to), so there won't be any ambiguity. Doremo (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA

Hi Eleassar, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Slovenian independence referendum, 1990

Moved to Talk:Slovenian independence referendum, 1990. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Distinct

Rezijanščina res se tudi odloči, ali Jesenšek razloči dve narečji, ker prekmurščina bogatejše besedišče ima, lahko izraži veliko terminoloških izrazov. Doncsecz^talk 13:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP Slovenia

Thanks for the invite, but I am really more interested in elections and referendums regardless of country. I'm also a bit disappointed by your most recent edit to the independence referendum article - I thought we had compromised on your preferred way of presenting the percentages in the text, but the results table using the standard reporting method? Number 57 11:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cockbridge

Hi, I just noticed the Cockbridge article. Cocks vs. roosters aside, I find the name weird as a closed compound. It makes it look like a grammaticalized form (like referring to Novo mesto as Newton). I think the two-word form Cock Bridge (like Dragon Bridge, Grain Bridge) would be a more suitable English name. Doremo (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal is a good one. However, this and several other articles should be deleted due to lack of reliable sources, while some others should be merged/redirected to a common article 'Bridges in Ljubljana' due to lack of verifiable content. (related discussions) Also, please, post article-related comments also to their respective talk pages. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I posted it here because I saw that you'd made the name change in question (in March 2008). The page doesn't seem to get much traffic (only 3 edits in the past 3 years), so I wanted to ask you directly about it. Speaking of articles for deletion, does Podutik Bridge (Podutiški most) exist? You've also contributed to that article, but I'm not familiar with the bridge. Doremo (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which bridge would be refered to by this name. In any case, Ljubljanica doesn't flow through Podutik. Feel free to nominate it (and others) for deletion again. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted Podutik Bridge per WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I fully agree. Doremo (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, restored now as sources have been found. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Steelworkers' Bridge

I really appreciated your input here and was curious as to weather you could provide any similar resources for the Steelworkers' Bridge article. It's one of 5 Slovenia articles still missing coordinates and I've become somewhat obsessed with getting that number down to 0. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 15:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's listed in the Registry as Jekarski most (instead of Jeklarski) and is located a bit downstream Gradaščica, just before its confluence with Ljubljanica. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You have no idea how many google and najdi.si searches I've done with no results. This made all the difference. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 15:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It should actually be moved to Jek Bridge, because it has nothing to do with steelworkers.[1] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK with me. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Kje je to?

Pišeš, da viri ne pokrepijo trditve, da so zahtevali prekmurščino kot uradni jezik med dvema vojna v Prekmurju? Franc Kuzmič piše v svojem članku evo: ohraniti je potrebno prekmurščino, v urade nastavljati predvsem domačine in uradne dopise je treba razglašati v prekmurščini (Stranke v Prekmurju med obema vojnama, 59. str. (dlib.si). Doncsecz^talk 06:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the translation efforts

Wondering if you could translate this page into Sloven? Book:Health Care It will be the template that we are working off of. Many thank Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Will translate it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where should I post the translation? There's no Books namespace in the Slovene Wikipedia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Is there a medicine wikiproject in Slovene? Maybe as a subpage of that?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no Medicine WikiProject in Slovene yet. It could (and should) be created. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Great so maybe start a sub page of this new project and than add this list to the page and link that page back to the book... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token e8965ee1da4a16ea9733242af3b62794

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Slava Klavora Theatre

No idea. I wasn't the one to put them there and have no idea where the source for them is. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 11:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Article title advice

Hi, Eleassar. I named the article St. Stanislaus Institute (Slovenia) using (Slovenia) because of the ambiguity with the one in Pennsylvania (St. Stanislaus Institute). Is there a proper/better/standard way to disambiguate this? For example:

• St. Stanislaus Institute, Slovenia
• St. Stanislaus Institute (Ljubljana)
• St. Stanislaus Institute, Ljubljana

The format doesn't matter to me, but I'd like it to follow a standard or preferred pattern (if there is one). Thanks for any advice you can offer. Doremo (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't reference a guideline, but as far as I know, the current title is perfectly ok and in line with other articles' titles. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. Doremo (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Marko Modic - eng page

Te lahko prosim za pomoč pri oblikovanju strani "Marko Modic". Sem popolnoma nov "editor" in ne prav vešča z računalnikom. Glede na komentarje sem dodala reference. Bo to zdaj dovolj? Najlepša hvala za pomoč! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3xdvanajst (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wild Lake

Hi, Eleassar, I made a decision on Wild Lake, which we discussed recently (I was forced into thinking about it by other professional circumstances) and I deleted "Savage Lake," which I commented on at the talk page. Doremo (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

need some help with article pages on filmmaker Zdravic

Hi Eleassar

I am writing in regards to a wiki page I created some months ago about the living Slovene filmmaker, Andrej Zdravic. I am hoping you can help me with this page.

I am a newcomer to Wikipedia (this was my second page that I created) but I am a PhD scholar in experimental film and ecology, which is a very small but important area of contemporary experimental film development. Zdravic's experimental (avant garde) film career is mainly based in the United States over several decades from 1975. Its also my first time to post to a talk page too.

I created this page as there are extremely few experimental filmmakers of Zdravic's calibre that have built up such a substantial body of work on recording the visual and aural qualities of nature, over such a number of decades. Zdravic's series of awards testifies to a substantially recognised body of artistic filmwork, although knowledge and awareness about experimental film is very small in the general public. There is now a small but growing interest in ecocinema in experimental film, film with special attention to nature, and I felt I should share his published achievements to a wider audience, particularly as his body of work is well regarded in the West.

I looked to other wiki pages on leading experimental (avant garde) filmmakers, such as Lithuanian, New York based filmmaker, Jonas Mekas, to devise the categories and format for Zdravic's wiki page. I then collated biographical information, with inline citations in respect to Wikipedia guidelines to Living People.

I returned to Zdravic's page earlier this week to see a number of warning messages on the page. As I wanted to attend to these details as quickly as possible (Zdravic is a living person who regularly lectures and exhibits overseas I logged in and attempted to remove material that may have been deemed as too much as an advertisement. I removed a 'News' section where there were details of his new 2011 Forest film installation that might have been read as an advertisement. I also removed the image. There was a note about providing more external links too (I had previously listed a number of external links to Zdravic's work previously, see Jan 19, 2012.. I listed these for other film researchers looking to understand Zdravic's career and film development. Can you please advise why these external links might not be appropriate. Similar external links appear on Jonas Mekas Wikipedia page. I would like to reinstate them as soon as possible if they are appropriate.) I also removed the category 'Slovene Video Artist' as Zdravic is regarded as a filmmaker, not a video artist, on the international scene. In published material I have seen, he does not consider himself primarily as a Slovene filmmaker as his film education, teaching and practice experience over several decades was overseas in the United States.

My difficulty, perhaps my lack of understanding as a new user to Wikipedia, is that I thought I had made the appropriate changes to provide a shortened neutral, informative page with inline recognised citations but when I went to view Zdravic's page yesterday on another computer, I found that none of the edits I had made have been retained. However, there now seems to be two Zdravic pages, one without a Slovene language accent Zdravic, and one with, Zdravič. I appear to have made changes to the page with the accent, Zdravič, but when I type in Zdravic (without the č) on other computers here, I get redirected to a Zdravic page that still has the Wikipedia warnings and none of my recent changes can be seen. The č character is not regularly available on keyboards in English speaking countries. I can see a redirect page has been setup but I can't seem to login to address and edit this page with the warnings. Should there be two pages that everyone would have to edit in the future?

Can you please help or advise. I am concerned as I have created a Wiki page now that looks like it contains material that are not within the Wiki guidelines but I have made the changes as requested but they are not appearing on the page most English speaking people would access. At first I thought I might not have refreshed the page/emptied the cache but there does now seem to be 2 pages, and the English page, which would appear when most film researchers would type in, Zdravic (without the č), will still lead to the page with warnings, that I cannot login into, edit or correct.

I am quite concerned that this page with warnings, left unchanged, is damaging in its appearance to Zdravic's professional reputation. As this is a time sensitive issue, I would appreciate your quick reply.

Thank you Eleassar

c_fitz (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you have not cleared the cache properly. I don't see any warnings at 'Andrej Zdravič' and there is only one page ('Andrej Zdravic' is a redirect). Please, try to avoid an essay-like style in articles and convert the list of exhibitions to prose, mentioning the most significant ones. Also, in communication with other editors, try to be brief as no-one will read long rants. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Eleassar

for your speedy reply and advice and apologies if I described the issue in too much detail. I am still getting used to Wikipedia and just wanted to be clear for you.

I have just asked another web person, using another computer over here to look up Zdravic's page and they are seeing the older page, still with the three warnings and sections that I have now deleted? I am confused. Could there still be some other problem with the page when accessed from other computers or are my edits not been accepted? On my own computer here, like you, I am now not seeing the warnings.

Here is a screen grab of the Zdravic page from 4.30pm this afternoon. Any help much appreciated. http://ecoartfilm.com/experimental-film-and-ecology/zdravic-page/http://ecoartfilm.com/experimental-film-and-ecology/zdravic-page/

Thank you for your help

c_fitz (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's possible there are some problems with the cache of the Wikimedia Foundation servers. No problem with the article on my computer though (it also doesn't have any tags now). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Eleassar

Perhaps that is the problem. Can I log the cache problem with Wikimedia? Can you direct me to a tech support page for servers if its not too much trouble. I can also see the old page when I try different browsers.

I appreciate the help, thank you!

c_fitz (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You will find some contacts at Wikipedia:Contact us. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Eleassar, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in doing a peer review, or if you had any comments on the article -- Marek.69 ^talk 07:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, currently I'm devoting myself to other things. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 09:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Graffity

Eleassar, ne vem zakaj poskusiš vedno drugače pisati, ker resnica je to, da ta graffity je provokacija. Veliko ljudi je tako menilo (razen Lainščeka), da ta graffity nima nobenega smisla. Ti vedno argumentiraš, da ti v Ljubljani nič nisi slišal, niti o Karlu Dončecu, čeprav v pokrajinskem muzeju v Soboti nekoč je bila razstava o njem. Doncsecz^talk 12:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources of the Adriatic Sea

Hi! I noticed you have contributed to the Adriatic Sea article, and I appreciate those fine additions, especially about the tallest cliff. However, please note that the diploma thesis is not a WP:RS since it has no editorial oversight, no matter how well intended and researched. Furthermore, please either discuss changes or study the article before editing - "Vruljas" are discussed as SGDs as should be in English wiki.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The diploma thesis has an editorial oversight - it is reviewed by the tutor (and often the co-tutor), who is a professor in their specific area. In any way, since when are peer-reviewed publications the only acceptable ones? See here: "The candidate has to submit his diploma work to a review." I have also not ever heard it is necessary to discuss before editing, particularly in adding properly referenced and verifiable material about notable topics. If you don't agree with a change, you may undo it and discuss then. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Granted, the diploma thesis is almost certainly correct, but the article is headed for the FA and that will not pass there - besides, there is a multitude of sources claiming the exact same thing since the diploma thesis itself uses (or should use) scientific sourcing. It's not necessary to discuss before editing, I agree, I simply meant to say that the SGDs were already present in another subsection and it came off wrong - sorry about that.

I would not like to see the text spiral out of proportion through discussion of geological (and other) makeup of every single bit of the coast and each island - a Geology of Adriatic Sea or a similar article should do that, and let's face it: the major part of Slovenian coast (60%) is less than 30km of coast. That's not to say it's less valuable than any other bit of coast, but we really should not go into great detail unless something extraordinary is discussed, such as the tallest cliff or a thermal submarine spring. Anyway, I really appreciate your input, I really doubt that I'd ever stumble upon the thermal springs and that info is great!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. I actually think the diploma thesis is a reliable source, and am not convinced by your argument that the article would not pass for the FA due to it being used as a source. Were there any such cases in the past? It can be regarded as a scientific source too. If necessary, this should be discussed at WP:RELIABLE (or elsewhere). I also think the Slovenian coast is not so important in the context of this article, but if you can add some general material about the flysch and alluvial plains, and avoid making impression that the Slovenian coast is largely of limestone/karst, I believe it would bring further quality to the article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: if I found an interesting fact in a diploma thesis, I'd see where the thesis sourced it and use that source rather than the thesis itself precisely to avoid any reliability discussion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is diploma theses are much more easily verifiable, as they are published online, and their sources are many times not always available on the Web. Also, your advice is not really helpful, as you would have to check the statement in the original source or mention that you've seen it in a diploma thesis, per Wikipedia:CITE#Say where you read it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Units of measurement

Please note that units of measurement used in prose should be spelled out per WP:MOSNUM.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS: "Symbols may also be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly." In my opinion, the word hectare(s) is a long one and only the first instance should be spelled out. Anyway, I can also change this back to full spelling. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Indented coast

Moved to Talk:Adriatic Sea. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Tivoli Pond for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tivoli Pond is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tivoli Pond until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tyrenon (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Tivoli Pond

Hi Eleassar, thanks for adding the new material to the Tivoli Pond article. I've made some copy-edits, including restoring some earlier edits that may have been inadvertently lost. If you have any questions about them, I'll be glad to comment. Doremo (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Doremo (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Eleassar,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be willing to share my experience through an e-mail exchange, but would like to be send the analysis when it's done/published. You may send me the questions now, but I'll have more time to answer them after 20 February, so expect my replies till 1 March. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PS logo since 21 January 2012.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PS logo since 21 January 2012.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is being asked (see the Yugoslav partisans Talk page) as politely as possible

In your opinion which sources dealing with the number of Slovene Partisans are more accurate? Is it the sources from 1980s (that are being cited in the diploma thesis by Primož Pirc written in 2008), or the ones collected and published in 2011 in the Slovenski zgodovinski atlas? The data given in the Slovenski zgodovinski atlas are as follows:

• December 1941: 1,200 Slovene partisans (it states "1200 partisans" only, but I think the armed illegals are included).
• Summer 1942: 5,300 Slovene partisans / 400 members of the Home Guard.
• Summer 1943: unchanged number as the year ago, i.e. 5,300 Slovene partisans / 6000 members of the Home Guard / 200 members of the Slovene Chetniks.
• Autumn 1943 (after the capitulation of Italian army): 20,000 Slovene partisans / 3,000 members of the Home Guard / 0 members of the Slovene Chetniks.
• Summer 1944: 30,000 Slovene partisans / 17,000 members of the Home Guard / 500 members of the Slovene Chetniks.
• Winter 1945: 34,000 Slovene partisans / 17,000 members of the Home Guard / 500 members of the Slovene Chetniks.

DancingPhilosopher 12:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Template:Welcome-belated, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

This edit has been corrected. To test using Twinkle welcome templates, go to User talk:Sandbox for user warnings.

Senator2029 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

2cellos

If you change the 2cellos page one more time i will report you. Anything you have to say can be said on the talk page,facts are facts,deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.187.85 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You may share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:78.1.187.85 reported by User:Eleassar (Result: ). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You have given me an unjust warning,my edits were justified and i gave the reasons on the 2cellos talk page,if you cannot dispute those facts (and you most certainly cannot) please refrain yourself from making edits to the page. I will report you for violating your admin rights,seeing as you are totally biased on the subject since you are from Slovenia,even though on EVERY SINGLE show 2 cellos were on they were introduced as cello duo from Croatia and NOT from Croatia and Slovenia. Furthermore their OFFICIAL facebook account clearly states hometown : Croatia (http://www.facebook.com/2cellos/info),they could have put Croatia and Slovenia if Luka was Slovenian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.187.85 (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You may share your thoughts about me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Feel welcome to further contribute to Talk:2Cellos, also please read WP:UNDUE, as I've already asked you in the edit summary. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Since you have made multiple vandal changes to the article 2cellos i am giving you this warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read WP:UNDUE,and it does not give you any right to change the article. I have reported you for multiple vandalism on the 2cellos article. If Luka Sulic declares himself as a Croat (evident in every show they are guest stars on,as with 2cellos OFFICIAL facebook page) then who are you to say otherwise? Furthermore if you want to make changes to the article,give your thoughts on the talk page,and if you have a source that can dispute all that has been stated there,then by all means do so,but until then refrain yourself from making vandal changes to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, per WP:UNDUE, the majority of sources are given prominence, and there is exactly one source claiming that Sulić was born in Croatia and plenty of others claiming he was born in Maribor, Slovenia (the sources have already been provided, but a quick list is available also at [2]). The Facebook page does not state he was born in Croatia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when does place of birth determine nationality? I was born in Tokio,Japan because my father was working there at the time,lived there until i was 7,but never has anyone thought that i was Japanese. Same thing with Luka, if he declares himself Croatian,than that is what he is. Again their OFFICIAL facebook page states that,and on every show they are guest stars,they are announced as a cello duo from Croatia,if Luka was Slovenian don't you think he would say something to the hosts of the show?Until they start announcing them as a cello duo from Croatia and Slovenia (and that will never happen) it must mean Luka identifies himself as a Croatian,thus that is what must be written in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The infobox does not cite nationality, it cites origin. If someone is born in Slovenia, he may be of Croatian nationality, but his origin is Slovene too, particularly if his place of birth is stressed in such a number of sources. He is described as the Slovenian/Slovenian-Croatian cello player in multiple reliable sources, like [3][4][5]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is my last message here,post on the talk page.... It does not matter if it cites origin or nationality,the simple fact that it states just Croatian is enough,seeing as they could have put Croatia and Slovenia if they chose to. There are much more sources that state they are both Croatian,all the shows they are guest stars on including numerous articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been no abuse of adminship tools, see [6]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Croatia-Slovenia border disputes

Thanks for removing the outdated tag; from a quick skim, the problem I was pointing out seems to have been fixed by someone who didn't remove the tag... Allens (talk | contribs) 14:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Logos of Slovenia

Logos from Slovenia are nominated for deletion due to uncertainty about copyright laws in Slovenia. Although they may be ineligible in the United States for lack of threshold of originality, they are discussed in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Slovenia. All I need is a simple translation about laws or something to translate into Slovenian language there. --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Martina Orožen

Kaj si pokazal, to ni verodostojen vir, ker je prekmurščina samo terminološke izraze izposojal iz knjižne slovenščine, samo nekateri nacionalisti poskusijo tako razlagati, da bi izkrivili dejstva, ker osrednja slovenščina je hibridna knjižna norma, ki se ni hotela razširiti z elementi iz vzhodne štajerščine in prekmurščine. Osrednji slovenski jezikoslovci so grajali prekmursko in štajersko književnost, da je to jezikovni separatizem, ni knjižni jezik. Torej od Martine Orožen ne išči virov. To je laž, da med starim knjižnim jezikom in današnjim pogovornim jezikom ni odnos, ti ne govoriš prekmurščine, pa ne poznaš prekmurskih knjig. Doncsecz^talk 16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In jezikoslovci nikoli ni pišejo, da velikokrat je fuzionirala prekmurščina proti knjižni hrvaščini. Nič ne veš o prekmurski zgodovini, kljub temu argumentiraš na te nacionalistične vire. Ker v knjigah Dühovna hrána, in drugih dobro lahko vidimo, da veliko izposojenih elementov je iz štokavščine, vendar o tem molčajo v Sloveniji, ker največji sovražnik Slovenije je Hrvaška. Če kajkavski knjižni jezik ne bi nehal v sredini 19. stoletja, tako bi prekmurščina nadaljevala svojo fuzijo proti kajkavščini, če bi osrednja slovenščina trdovratno, enostransko izključila štajerski in prekmurski knjižni jezik. Ena izmed največjih jezikovnih zablod 19. stoletja je osrednja slovenščina, kot enostranski, hibriden knjižni jezik. Boljši enotni knjižni jezik bi bil Dajnkova štajerska slovenščina, ker je to v sebi združila značilnosti osrednje in vzhodne slovenščine. Doncsecz^talk 17:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have read it. I will not reply here, because this discussion belongs to Talk:Prekmurje dialect. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Koseze pond coordinates

This was placed somewhere on a Croatian island before I changed it. Now it's placed in the middle of a water body in Ljubljana. I don't have a source for this location or most of the other 200 ones I've added to articles over time. I just look at the info in the article and the official page of the subject (if there is one) and go from there. As far as I know coordinates don't need references, I certainly haven't seen anyone else cite any. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's Clean Slovenia

I've always wondered if we can pull something like this off, so I nominated the relevant articles for a triple DYK after yesterday's expansion - see Template:Did you know nominations/Let's Clean Slovenia. Your help in responding to eventual comments and further effort in improving the articles would be welcome. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's great. I had in mind to nominate them too. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Slovene painters

• See my proposal to upmerge Category:Slovene painters to Category:Slovenian painters; I think Slovene or Slovenian is a nationality not an ethnicity Hugo999 (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering

I just noticed Cleveland is in scope of WP Slovenia. Is that by mistake or is there a reason for that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is because of the strong Slovene minority in Cleveland, see [7][8]. I was wondering whether it is ok to mark the article, but then reasoned that it is related to Slovenia and Slovenes. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought so. Not sure about that one, not that I am experienced in assigning articles to WPs though. The reason for asking is that this is not so in WP Croatia, and a lot of articles would meet that criteria - including that one. I'll leave that to Joy or GregorB though, they seem much more experienced in that area.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd much prefer to tag Cleveland Slovenes, but until the article is created, I'll leave it as it is. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Addition to geography of the Adriatic

Hi! While the new paragraph in the Geography section is a good addition, it appears to be in the wrong place. It talks of many different things belonging to bathymetry, hydrology or elsewhere - some of those items are already discussed in those sections... Would you consider breaking up that paragraph and moving it to those sections as it appears largely redundant or misplaced now?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that. I'd be grateful if you can take what is useful and move it as you seem fit. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem - don't get me wrong, it's useful overall - but most of it is repeated elsewhere while other stuff clearly belongs to another sections. Still the gyre is a great addition!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Future

Hi! Thanks for all constructive edits of the Adriatic Sea - it is now headed for GA review to iron it out before it eventually (hopefully) becomes a FAC. What do you think about possibly doing the same for the Sava River as a joint project at some point?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting. What bothers me with the Adriatic still is that the biogeographical units are only listed but not explained. I'll add this tomorrow if time permits. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

They needn't be explained in detail - per summary style, detailed explanations go to detailed, specific articles, so I wouldn't worry about that. For instance, history section could be expanded several times over, but that should be in a hypothetical "History of the Adriatic Sea" article. Believe me, that's not a problem either at GA or FA level - opposite is possible for larger subsections which might need be reduced in size with the full text moved to a separate article. Still, let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

On the other hand, if you do add substantial text, just let User:Allens know, and he'll copyedit the text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as Sava is concerned, being the largest river in both Slovenia and Croatia, I believe it's important to both SLO and CRO projects. Perhaps we could start off with a to-do list to plan ahead and divide efforts there?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a short description in a sentence or at maximum two for each of these three regions. Regarding Sava, it would be useful to have such a list. It's great that we finally started collaborating instead of competing. Also I'm getting some experience in writing FAs. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

My only direct involvement with Slovenia articles is a few on Slovenian composers and theatres in Ljubljana, so I probably shouldn't move Andrej Kracman to WP:CONSISTENCY spelling. But as I note you're active on WProject Slovenia, you may wish to. Seems to be the odd one out. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Otherwise, if you're unsure, you may use WP:RM. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Formation of Slovene ethnicity

Hey. The article you mention represents a frequent, but not consensual position. I haven't read it through, but I'm familiar with the author. As far as I know, his positions are a bit more nuanced: it's more of an issue about continuity and representation. To be more precise: a polemics against a linear narrative of ethnic / national emancipation. The claim that "a Slovene ethnicity didn't exist before the 19th century" is not really made in these terms (at least I think not), he tries to show that either certain authors (it's mostly about authors, as far as I know) didn't conceive identity in ethnic but regional terms, or that they conceptualized it differently etc. Which is a bit of a tautology, I must say, since every term has a history; saying that "Slovene didn't mean the same in the 18th or 16th century" is of course true, but nor did any other ethonym. And saying that the basis of how we understand Slovene ethnicity/ nationhood now derives from the 19th century also goes without saying: virtually all ethnic identities in Europe were established/fixed in the 19th century. But, for example, notions of "Austrian", "Hungarian", "Polish", "Greek", "Lithuanian" or even "Croatian" underwent much greater transformation: in comparison with other European ethonyms (names for ethnic groups/ nations), the Slovene is a pretty fixed one. I would discourage following such a restrictive definition, for at least four reasons: 1) there's no scholarly consensus in this (nor will it be anytime soon); 2) it would go against the established norm in other articles. Let's strop here for a while. Let's take the example of Franz Caucig or Giuseppe (Josip) Tominc: removing the category Slovene painters, they would remain with the category Italian painters. I have nothing against this second label, but it's equaly if not more problematic than the former (Italian in which sense? They both never set foot in Italy, which didn't exist at the time. I don't think there's any source that they called themselves Italians ... But of course they were, in a sense, also Italians, insofar as they worked within an Italian cultural milieu, eventually assimilating to it). 3) Slovene is not an anachronistic term (it can be traced back at least to the 16th century, but linguistic analysis shows that it could not have been invented then: it must have had a continuity from the earliest periods of Slavic settlement), nor is it a disputed one (in the sense that it would, during a certain period, compete with other ethonyms; the linguist Logar wrote somewhere that all Slovene dialects know this term and apply it to their own context, with the only ecception of Resian; this means that it was not "invented" in the 19th century, but that one can trace an evolution of the meaning). Furthermore, there's a fairly fixed continuity in how it was used until the late 20th century: to denote people coming for a certain ethnic and/or lingusitic background (differently, for example, for the term "Polish" or "Hungarian", which up to the early 19th century denote people belonging to a territory, regardless their ethnicity; afterwards, there are decades of conflicting use, before it finally becomes the term for an ethicity). And finally, 4) there is no suitable alternative name. How should we call Trubar? An Austrian preacher? But Austria was at the time confined either to the current regions of Upper & Lower Austria or to the Habsburg dinasty. Inner Austrian preacher? But that was a purely administrative name; to use the name of administrative units for the people living there is a modern custom, nobody would speak of "Inner Austrians" at the time (nor later). "Carniolan preacher": that could actually work, but we have very little proof that this was a label actually used by people outside the nobility; as far as I recall, Trubar never referred to himself as "Carniolan". He spoke of Slovenes, called himself Illyrian etc., but showed little or no care for his regional, i.e. Carniolan identity. So what I would suggest is to decide case by case, using common sense. The more we go back in time, the more does the label Slovene become problematic, but so do all. Therefore, I would be quite strongly opposed to call, for example, Sigmund (Žiga) Herberstein a "Slovene diplomat" (although "Austrian diplomat" is equally problematic): the term Carniolan would suit him best. But as we approach the 19th century, I don't see any problems in using it for people who come from the rural background and would have in any case been identified (also) by it during their lifetime. Viator slovenicus (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What you're quoting is an enumeration of the provinces. The quote that "us" is referencing to the whole of the enumerated names, i.e., that Trubar is trying to articulating the belonging to a supra-regional entity. It's also clear that he's not entirely sure what this supra-regional entity should consist of (not to mention that his geographic knowledge proves to be, more than often, rather poor). A few things are quite clear, though: in the 16th century, among intellectuals, the term "Slovene" was a polysemic one (ie, used to denote different things); both Trubar and most of Slovene Protestants didn't distinguish between "Slovene" and "Slavic" (not a wonder, since this distinction was introduced into Slovene only at the beginning of the 19th century, when the noun "Slovani" and adjective "slovanski" was borrowed from Czech; throughout the 19th century, it competed with other terms, such as "slavjanski" or "slovenski" - see Finžgar - until it was fixed by the positivistic historiography of the late 19th century); virtually all of them were aware of the specific linguistic character of the language spoken in Carniola, Carinthia, Styria etc. in comparison with other cognate languages and although in teorethical terms they didn't know where exactly to put the linguistic boundary (most of them regarded the Kajkavian Croatians to be linguistically Slovenes; but Kopitar, in the 1830s and 1840s, also did), on the practical level they restricted themselves exclusively to Slovene dialects, and thought of the Slovene ethnic territory as their main, sometimes sole (Cerkovna ordnunga) sphere of action. To understand, however, what was (were) the meaning(s) of the notion "Slovene" among Trubar and the Slovene protestants one would have to go into a thorough textual analysis, bearing in mind the linguistic features of the language at that time (both German and Slovene), literary conventions and narrative topoi, as well as the contextual aspect (ie. whom was the text written for, what is the author's intention in a particular text, etc.). This hasn't been done, and Kosi, with all due respect, doesn't have the proper knowledge to venture into such an analysis (nor does Štih, for that matter). His are interesting speculations, and in a good case of critical historiography, but they shouldn't be taken at face value. Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant before was that, contrary to his emphatic embracement of Slovene identity (whatever that meant to him), he rarely, if at all, edentifies himself as Carniolan, in the sense of regional patriotism (as Valvasor, or later most personalities from the Carniolan Enlightenment). But again, I'm far from being an expert on the subject. I guess he might have stressed his Carniolan identity when he addressed the local nobility. But among the Protestants of Carniola, one won't find anything similar to the Carinthian "regional patriotism" of Hieronymus Megiser ... Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Milko Bambič

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ecologists Without Borders

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Let's Clean Slovenia in One Day!

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Let's Clean Slovenia 2012

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oddelek za zaščito naroda

What is the purpose of having a non-English redirect that isn't used by a single other article? If someone searches for the Slovene term, the search engine will get them to the right article, just like if someone searches for the Serbo-Croatian term that has no redirect. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else, it simplifies searching, because it takes you exactly to the right place. I don't think the deletion is covered by WP:REDIRECT. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

CFD speedy nomination moved to a full discussion

Hello, you recently participated in a discussion of Category:Slovene painters at WP:CFDS. FYI, I have moved this discussion to a full discussion here. (I noted this link on my talk page in a response to you, which you may be following, but I'm just formally notifying those who participated, so I'm including you.) Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Karst spring

Hi Eleassar. Thanks for your work on this article. I have translated the remaining section, but would be grateful for your expert eye on it - I am not a geologist! Does it make sense? I didn't find a translation for Hungerbrunnen. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I. However, Google offers specialised books about speleology that translate this as hunger spring, like [9]. Your translation is therefore ok. Thanks for the translation. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Adriatic Sea makes GA

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you for your valuable contributions to the Adriatic Sea article, helping it become a Good Article! Tomobe03 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This is my first barnstar (I started editing here in 2005) and I feel very honoured. I hope we will bring Sava to the level of GA too. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was just about to propose such a move now that the Adriatic Sea is GA. I plan to start a section on that in talk page of Sava article, so we could discuss what need be done there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Bridge article rename from "bridge (place)" to "bridge, place"

That's not the normal way of doing things here. For example, check out the disambig page Veterans' Memorial Bridge. Run down it and see what it contains. - Denimadept (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that, and thanks for the note. I think it's inconsistent to name bridges as "Bridge (Place)" and churches as "Church, Place" (as recommended at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture)). I'll post a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If the naming convention is to use "name, place", then we'd better get going with the bridge articles. - Denimadept (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's only a proposed guideline and only deals with churches. I've posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a pointer to your topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#Naming convention. Now let's see if anyone chimes in. - Denimadept (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Eleassar, you are invited!

I was thinking you could add something about Slovenian universities, as we are seeking to share information. --Comparativist1 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Illyrisches Blatt

Hi Eleassar, I don't know anyone that would use "sheet" to refer to a newspaper, or any newspaper that is called the Xxx Sheet. Typical names are Xxx Times, Xxx News, Xxx Herald, etc., but Xxx Sheet sounds ridiculous. If you can find an example of a normal newspaper called Xxx Sheet in English (there are a few "joke" or derogatory names like Street Sheet and scandal sheet) then it could be a legitimate gloss for Illyrisches Blatt. Otherwise you should really use something standard like Illyrian News. Doremo (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For the second link, I don't know where Fallon got "Illyrian Sheet", but he probably just copied it from somewhere. On the same page he's also got "The Ward of Our Lady of Mercy" (which is a mistranslation and a copied title) and "The Bailiff Yerney and His Rights" (which is an archaic title and is also copied). Or he probably pulled the word sheet out of a German dictionary. Here are some legitimate translations of Blatt: Aachen Free Press, The Satyr: Gazette for Public Opinion and Free Speech, New Monday Paper, Stettin Illustrated Monday News, etc. Doremo (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't realise that the name Street Sheet was a joke, but I do believe you. I haven't seen the translation Illyrian News used for Illirisches Blatt in reliable sources. On the other hand, it is often used for Gaj Ljudevit's newspaper Ilirske novine, published in the same time, which makes it ambiguous. I've seen the name Illyrian Paper has been used in a scholarly article. ("Moreover, Illyrisches Blatt (The Illyrian Paper), published in German, is of prime importance for this study")[10] so I think it would be more suitable, because it seems closer to the original and also because it is a "natural disambiguation". This translation ("Paper") was also used in the link mentioning the New Monday Paper. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the name Street Sheet was chosen for the rhyme, and it is probably also a joke on street shit (i.e., the "stuff that goes on on the streets of a large city") because it focuses on homelessness and poverty. It doesn't matter to me whether Blatt is translated as 'news', 'paper', 'gazette', etc.; I simply used 'news' as the most neutral choice, but there's also some value in differentiation. Doremo (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Central Sava Valley and Lower Sava Valley

Hi! Are Lower Sava Valley and Central Sava Valley really names used in English? I'm asking because both (especially Lower Sava Valley) are highly misleading since both are in effect in upper course of Sava?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed wikibreak notice - good luck with the exams!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that reliable sources preferentially use the Slovene names Zasavje and Posavje (or perhaps the Zasavje and the Posavje). You may also check whether these names appear in Klinar, Stanko. Slovenska zemljepisna imena v angleških besedilih [Slovene Geographical Names in English Texts]. Ljubljana, 1994. ISBN 86-7707-067-2. COBISS 45578752 --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Klinar (1994) is an unreliable source at best. It's written by a non-native speaker of English and contains spelling errors and grammatical errors. Just my two cents worth. Within the Slovenian context, Lower Sava Valley and Central Sava Valley are accurate. In the context of the entire length of the Sava, I agree that they are misleading. Doremo (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sava River source elevation

Hi! Just noticed the change from 870 to 833 masl for Sava source elevation. I don't think the source you used for elevation is correct, because other sources (e.g. Trockner) consistently give elevation of 870 m, and considering elevation of Podkoren of 860 masl, located downstream from Zelenci, it is clear that 833 m is incorrect. I'm inclined to doubt accuracy also by indicated length of 947km contrary to other sources which report 945 for Sava proper and 990 km with Sava Dolinka. Can you think of another source which might verify this?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at a map, Trockner is probably wrong. Sorry to nag you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. When you recently edited Tivoli City Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glasshouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguated. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Polde Bibič

Hi, I've expanded the article a bit and nominated it for DYK. Cheers. --Tone 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Polde Bibič

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Slovene/Slovenian

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene)#Slovenian/Slovene. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Slovenski biografski leksikon

There are two problems with Slovene Biographical Lexicon, which is a word-for-word translation of Slovenski biografski leksikon. First, it doesn't fit the normal English pattern for such works, which is Encyclopedia of ___ Biography (68.5 million hits: Encyclopedia Of World Biography, Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography, Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography, Encyclopedia of American Biography, etc.), compared to about 5,000 rather un-English hits for ___ Biographical Lexicon (Croatian Biographical Lexicon, Slovenian Biographical Lexicon, Biographical Lexicon of the History of the Bohemian Lands, Schleswig-Holstein: Biographical Lexicon, etc.). Second, the English word lexicon tends to refer to a dictionary (Sln. slovar), not an encyclopedia (Sln. enciklopedija 'encyclopedia', leksikon 'encyclopedic dictionary') (Sln. leksikon is a Germanism, so it's also found in other German-influenced languages.). However, the mistranslation Slovene Biographical Lexicon is so common that it's hard to insist that it's impossible. Doremo (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see, but Encyclopedia of Slovene Biography is a very obscure translation. It also does not convey the same meaning, because as you have written yourself, lexicon means a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. If the word lexicon is obtrusive, I'd suggest the alternative Slovene Biographical Dictionary, which is somewhat more common and closer to the original in its meaning, word composition, and acronym. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"biographical dictionary" would be OK too (see examples here). However, the general syntax for published works is Biographical Dictionary of ___ (except for publishers' names: Chambers Biographical Dictionary, The Cambridge Biographical Dictionary), although I see New Jersey Biographical Dictionary as one exception to this pattern, so Biographical Dictionary of Slovenia would be a more natural title. Encyclopedia of Slovene Biography would also be a natural title (based on the many titles cited above). Or Dictionary of Slovene Biography, by analogy with Dictionary of National Biography.

Note that Eng. lexicon tends to mean 'dictionary' but that Sln. leksikon tends to mean 'encyclopedic dictionary' (i.e., Eng. lexicon ≠ Sln. leksikon). However, the term encyclopedic dictionary is rarely used by non-specialists; most English speakers would refer to Veliki splošni leksikon or Slovenski veliki leksikon as "encyclopedias" and definitely not as a "dictionaries." Doremo (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why Slovene Biographical Dictionary or, if more recognisable, Slovene Biographical Encyclopedia would be less suitable.. It's used in real life and judging per Biographical dictionary, it's not a so rare form (e.g. Universal Biographical Dictionary, A Chinese Biographical Dictionary, The Indian Biographical Dictionary, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary, The United States Biographical Dictionary etc.) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for examples from English-speaking countries as a model; "universal" and "Islamic" aren't nationalities, so I'd ignore those as a model, and "Chinese" and "Indian" are Chinese and Indian (it's hard to say what influenced the syntax of the titles, regardless of author or place of publication). I'm just saying that a typical/frequent English pattern should be imitated as most natural, so I focused on the UK and U.S. examples at Biographical dictionary. There are exceptions, of course. Doremo (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the Indian Biographical Dictionary and The United States Biographical Dictionary, I'd say that in English-speaking countries, the name Slovene Biographical Dictionary would be completely ok. Albeit it would not follow the most frequent pattern, it would not seem strange to a native speaker. Do you disagree? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The United States Biographical Dictionary is a problematic example because the full title is The United States Biographical Dictionary and Portrait Gallery of Eminent and Self-made Men (which makes the reversed pattern the quite awkward The Biographical Dictionary and Portrait Gallery of Eminent and Self-made Men of the United States) and also because it's from 1878. Slovene Biographical Dictionary is not wrong, but it also doesn't follow the most frequent pattern, so it's difficult to justify it as the most natural choice when choosing among various options. Doremo (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok then. Let's then stick to Encyclopedia of Slovene Biography. Or better, Dictionary of Slovene Biography. Judged by Biographical dictionary, it is more typical. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Church names

Note that both "the Church of St. Martin" and "St. Martin's Church" (e.g., at Template:Ig) are correct in English. I've got no objection to the change to "St. Martin's Church" if you prefer it, but it will only work for short personal names (e.g., "the Church of the Holy Cross" but not "Holy Cross' Church", and "the Church of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal" but not "Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal's Church"). Doremo (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's what has been mostly used in Wikipedia and also recommended by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) - although still a proposal. The form 'Holy Cross Church, Place' has been used for a number of articles. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the recommendation was written by someone that was being overly rigid because both forms are quite common. The proposal also contains non-native English errors—for example, "St. Archangels Monastery" (the correct form is given at the linked article Monastery of the Holy Archangels). "Holy Cross Church" is OK but not "Holy Cross' Church" (a possessive form). Doremo (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, possibly. However, per WP:CRITERIA, "Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

However, titles still have to be grammatically correct (naturalness and English-language usage). Regardless of similar articles, such possessives can be used with personal names but not names of things, and sveti = 'Saint' for people but 'Holy' etc. for non-people. Doremo (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I have never objected to this. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Mars Science Laboratory

Howdy! While you were cleaning things up a bit, it would appear that a dependent reference was deleted, causing the further cited Gale source to not be formatted correctly. I'm going to assume that you were going to fix it and leave it alone for a bit. Otherwise, I'll try to track down the original reference. Cheers! OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 08:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I'm going to fix it. Thanks for the notification anyway. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Jelenja Vas, Kočevje

The problem is that there are two places called Jelenja vas in the municipality of Kočevje: the current village of Jelenja Vas (outside former Gottschee County, = Jelenavasz in the Josephinian Survey) and the former village of Jelenja Vas (inside former Gottschee County, = Hirisgruben in the Josephinian Survey). So the problem for disambiguation is which one to call "Jelenja Vas, Kočevje" and what to call the other one. Doremo (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Was the county named Kočevje or Gottschee? If the latter, then the article should be moved to Jelenja Vas, Gottschee. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

But it's all Kočevje now; I wouldn't want to start introducing historical names for all the former villages because they currently exist as places in Slovenia today (otherwise it'd be like "Šiška, Laibach" or something). If we use the principle of disambiguating by the next-higher administrative unit, then it would be "Jelenja Vas, Štalcerji" (= hamlet in Štalcerji) vs. "Jelenja Vas, Kočevje" (= independent settlement in Municipality of Kočevje). Doremo (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then let's keep it at Štalcerji. The lead of the article should be rewritten though to indicate it is a hamlet in Štalcerji that in the past existed as an independent settlement. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Should Jelenja Vas be moved to "Jelenja Vas, Kočevje" for parallel disambigation? If so, then a "Jelenja Vas" disambuguation page can be made. Doremo (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If the former settlement/current hamlet is similarly known as the current village, then yes. If it is much less known, then no (see WP:PTOPIC). It would be great if the article explained when the hamlet ceased to be part of Novi Lazi (mentioned in the second paragraph) and became part of Štalcerji, because this is unclear now. I'd recommend rephrasing 'Its territory is now part of Štalcerji' to 'It is now a hamlet of Štalcerji', if this is correct according to Krajevni leksikon. A link should be provided from the article Štalcerji, optionally as part of a list of hamlets of this village. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the "Novi Lazi" part was an error in the source because it's contradicted by the source itself and also by the Geopedia data, so I removed it. The orthophoto view shows what seems to be newer construction at the site, so I agree that "hamlet" is more appropriate than "territory" in this case because it's more than just empty woodland. Doremo (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Krajevni leksikon specifically lists names of hamlets of individual settlements.. so if this one is not listed, also we shouldn't list it. I'm not sure whether this is an error: Ferenc also includes it as part of 'Novi Lazi'. [11] (pg. 65) Or these articles.[12]--Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at the KNOO Novi Laz ("Novi Lazi local national liberation committee") stuff too. I don't know how long these divisions were used; an article by Ferenc (page 71) says they included 4.48 settlements on average. Probably something to mention in the historical section at some point. Doremo (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

They were in use from 1945 to 1946.[13] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO the article should be rewritten to focus on the former settlement rather than the current hamlet and (for this reason and to disambiguate) moved to Iskrba, which was an established name for it.[14] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a stub at this point, so it's possible that it could develop in that direction (like Constantinople). I'm not convinced that Iskrba would be a more helpful title instead of the current name; for example, Iskrba can't be found at Geopedia but Jelenja vas is there. In any case, redirects/disambiguations from various historical names (Iskrba, Hirisgruben, Hirschgruben) as needed, and having these defunct names clearly presented in the lede, should make matters clear. Doremo (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:AT "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title." That's why I've proposed Iskrba. I actually don't know whether it's more or less common, but it is an established and unambiguous name. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It would take more research to determine which name is more common, or whether people still use the name Iskrba today; my own suspicion is that the name was changed to Jelenja vas because the name Iskrba was too German—or maybe it had to do with the hunting lodge there. But these are just guesses; I haven't been able to find any data on when or why the name was changed. Doremo (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the hamlet of Jelenja Vas, as much as it exists today, can be described in the article 'Štalcerji', with the rest of the hamlets (is there only this one or are there others?); there's not really much verifiable content to write about it and it is better to have one comprehensive article than several stubs on hamlets. IMO, the article 'Iskrba' should be about the historical village or should be merged to Štalcerji. In this context 'Jelenja Vas, Štalcerji' seems like an anachronism (recentism). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The article may end up focusing more on the history of Jelenja Vas than the current goings-on there. I'll probably add more to it soon, but just wanted to get the stubs up first. It will take a while, though. The Jelenja Vas, Štalcerji article is already better developed and better referenced than some of the stubs for independent settlements. If it develops into a historical article that dead-ends in 1942, then it could be treated like Smyrna (for example, which dead-ends around 1922), and if it ends up having some kind of historical continuity into the present then the present name is probably better. Similar examples of former settlements (chosen at random): Teisbach; Shituru; Wondelgem; Kenmore, Ontario. Doremo (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mladinsko Theatre

'Moved to Talk:Slovenian Youth Theatre. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

One of your edits confuses me

Hi, I just found a strange edit here. Normally I would just delete it and leave a note about reliable sources but given that you're a big contributor to WP Slovenia I wanted to ask you is there something here that I'm missing? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 14:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. The correct district is Jarše, of course.[15] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Motionless marching donkeys

I noticed you recently added the photograph File:SkPasijon7.JPG as an illustration in both the Procession and Tableau vivant articles. To me this does not make any sense; in a procession, the participants are moving, whereas in a tableau vivant, they are standing still, as if in a freeze frame. How can the actors in the photograph be both moving and standing still? Furthermore how did they get the donkey to remain completely motionless? ;) Is it possible you added the photograph to Tableau vivant in error? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so. This would be scenes rather than tableaux vivants. The original 13 images (Slovene: slike) of the play were divided into 20 scenes (prizori) in its modern replay.[16] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Coat of arms of the Diocese of Celje.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Strelnikoff-Bitchcraft.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Strelnikoff-Bitchcraft.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Marina Portorož / Marina Lucija

I am planning to do a Marina Portorož article, however, i was wondering, is the article more related to Lucija, as the marina is actually closer to Lucija, or Portorož?Mrwho00tm (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Geopedia.si, the marina is part of the settlement of Lucija and is also named 'Marina Lucija'.[17] The company is named Marina Portorož, d. d.[18] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well thanks doc!Mrwho00tm (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Valdoltra Hospital

Looks like the duplicate detector only detected the names of places and people which are impossible to change, as that is what they are-names. Take a look; http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Fapi.php%3Faction%3Dquery%26prop%3Drevisions%26titles%3DOrthopedic_Specialty_Hospital_Valdoltra%26rvprop%3Dcontent%26rvstart%3D20120901183645&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ob-valdoltra.si%2Fzgodovina&minwords=2&minchars=13&removequotations=&removenumbers= Mrwho00tm (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The comparison was not done using the duplicate detector. I've compared the two pages myself. You may leave a message at the talk page of the article if you disagree with my evaluation. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Then why were only the names highlighted in the report? Anyway, It's quite difficult to retype it with completely other words, as the current version is pretty understandable, well atleast for me. Could you please give me an example what is the approximate limit to where can two texts be similar? In some cases its nearly impossible to write any different without making it clutterish. Thanks, Mrwho00tm (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I presume the duplicate detector can't adequately compare two documents in different languages. I agree that it's difficult, that's why I advised you to find another source and try to combine them (in your own words). There's no hard rule about the limit of resemblance, however it's important to keep in mind that "Words or ideas do not follow the same pattern and order as the source material." This does not mean that the chronology can't be the same, but the phrases such as "First attempts at...", "when a boathouse was constructed for sport and recreation activities" which appear also in the source "prvi poskusi, da bi"... "ko je bila zgrajena čolnarna, namenjena športu in rekreaciji" etc. can be stated otherwise. For example: "The history of Lucija Marina begins with the construction of a boathouse for leisure and sport use at the place of an old abandoned saltworks." Here a different phrasing has been used to convey the same idea. However, another source should be found to try to create your own narration. As long as this is not done, the two articles will most probably resemble each other too much. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#How to write acceptable content. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Zdravljica

Hi Eleassar. I have reverted your deletion of the Slovenian national anthem lyrics. In your reasoning, you quoted WP:LYRICS. However, if you read further down that page, you will note that national anthems are dealt with as an exception to the general rules about songs, and that lyrics are customarily included in the articles (Slovenia is the only one I have found so far that did not include the lyrics). They are exempted because (1) most national anthems are out of copyright, and (2) those that are still subject to copyright are considered to be allowable under fair use. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. You're probably aware that only the seventh stanza is Slovenian national anthem; the whole poem has eight (originally nine) stanzas. I like the elegant way how the lyrics have been included into God Save the Queen. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering about the verses. I have only restored the amendment you made in May 2012, but it is normal on national anthem articles to also include the other (omitted) verses, and to highlight the ones used as the anthem, with some blurb about which are sung, as in the case of Deutschlandlied, Lijepa naša domovino or Argentine National Anthem. Don't know why they weren't there in the first place. I see you have a particular interest in Slovenian articles. Do you fancy knocking it into shape when you get the chance?

Must say, the Slovenian anthem's lyrics are amongst the least warlike, most inclusive, least sycophantic, that I've come across! And at least you don't get fined (or even imprisoned), if you get a word wrong when you're singing it (see Majulah Singapura, which incidentally, is a good article)!

Sadly, the lyrics have only been woven into the alternative versions of God Save the Queen, which are hardly ever heard (the 2012 Olympics being an exception). The usual version remains one that bitterly divides the country (republicans and many Irish, Welsh and Scots residents refuse to sing it at all). It doesn't help that many Britons consider the tune to be a dirge, as well. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice job you've done! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Add Bosanski to Main Page

I found out that link to Bosanski (http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po%C4%8Detna_strana) language does not exist on the main page. I'm not the administrator, so I can not add the link. Thanks. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The wiki is too small to be listed there. The current minimum is 50,000 articles. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I did't know that the limit exists. Thanks. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is, however, listed at List of Wikipedias. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ljudski vrt

I have left you couple of messages at the Talk:Ljudski vrt. Ratipok (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have also left a msg at Talk:City Stadium Ob jezeru. I have written that msg before I knew you where the one who started changing things and moving articles.Ratipok (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	I know you've done an immense deal of other great work on Wikipedia as well, but I came across this today and thought it was really great - what Wikipedia should be all about. Thanks for your work on Cock Bridge (Ljubljana). Well done! U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 20:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel honoured and touched. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Triple Bridge completion

Hi Eleassar, I saw that you were working on the 1931/1932 completion of the Triple Bridge. Consider the article here (page 2, "Tromostje je dograjeno"). I don't know if this counts as completion of construction or opening on 8 October 1931. However, it sounds like an announcement of completion and it mentions the celebratory toast (likof) and the "maypole" (okrašena smreka), so it's probably worth citing as a source in any case. Doremo (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a great source. Thanks a lot. There are other sources that prove the bridge was open only in March 1932, though: 1) P. Krečič. Jože Plečnik. (1992): "Kmalu po izvedbi Tromostovja (zač. leta 1932)" [Early after the completion of the Triple Bridge (in the beginning of 1932], 2) Slovenski narod (10 December 1931):[19]: "Pri tromostovju pa obklesavajo mostne fasade." [They're chiseling the bridge facade at the Triple Bridge.] It seems that the two side bridges were built in 1931, but finer works went on until March 1932. 3) Slovenski narod (29 December 1931):[20] "Vse kaže, da bo Tromostovje kmalu otvorjeno" [It seems that the Triple Bridge will soon be open.] I've seen one of these state that the bridge will be given a permission for use in March 1932, but can't find it anymore. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This source (Slovenski narod, 21 March 1932) mentions that almost all work has been finished at the end of March 1932, except for some stonemansonry.[21] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't exactly know what the decorated spruce and toast signify in the traditional Slovene construction industry (I've also seen recent examples of the "spruce on the roof"); they obviously achieved something special on 8 October, but there must have been additional finishing work that lasted until March. Doremo (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

These are usually the celebration at the end of the work. It seems that the bridge was opened for pedestrians already before March 1932,[22], perhaps in October 1931, but works continued until April 1932. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dragonja

Hi! Would you be interested in translating description of the Dragonja course from Slovene wiki and adding that to the "Course" section?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll rather use [23] and perhaps some other, taking care to not violate copyrights. I'm not sure about the reliability of sl. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That does seem better.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Blank image notice?

Perhaps it would be useful to add some sort of "blank" image at the top of relevant articles (say, a white square with a legal notice) stating that certain structures are forbidden for representation under Slovene law? Otherwise it's just a matter of time before a contributor notices what seems to be an obvious oversight and, acting in good faith, adds new clear images of iconic structures such as Dragon Bridge (designer died in 1946), Prešeren Monument, Ljubljana, Triple Bridge, Nebotičnik (architect died in 1946), NUK, National Assembly Building, etc. Doremo (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Most surely not for the English Wikipedia, because images of architecture can be uploaded here freely (with Template:FoP-USonly) and sculptures can be uploaded under the conditions of the fair use. Articles on France and Belgium (e.g.) also don't have any such message. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please advise me regarding a specific example (because you've studied this issue more than I have). This image from another contributor is a monument in Slovenia unveiled in 1955. 1) Is it inappropriate for it to be at Commons? 2) Can it be added to the English Wikipedia article Dobrunje? It is currently used at the English Wikipedia article List of World War II monuments and memorials in Slovenia. 3) Is it legal to use it there? I also have a similar image of the same monument (my own photo). 4) Is it possible to for me (physically located in Slovenia) to legally use my image at Dobrunje by uploading it in a non-Commons location? Doremo (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here are the answers:

• The platform was designed by Boris Kobe (1905-1981), whereas all the sculptures and reliefs were made by Zdenko Kalin (1911-1990) and Karel Putrih (1910-1959).[24] According to the Slovenian copyright act, the copyright lasts for the lifetime of the longest living author and 70 years afterward starting from the 1 January of the year following the author's death. The longest living author was Zdenko Kalin, who died in 1990, which means that it will be public domain in 70+1 years, i.e. in 2061.
• As a copyrighted work which is per commons:Commons:FOP#Slovenia not available for commercial use, this work does not belong to Commons, because Commons accepts only images (and other files) that may be used for any purpose.
• It can't be used in the article Dobrunje, unless the article specifically discusses this monument. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy.
• You can use this image legally, if you don't use it for commercial purposes, but you can only use it in Wikipedia under the conditions of the above-mentioned Non-free content policy. The English Wikipedia accepts as free only works of architecture, but not sculptures and other publicly displayed works, if they're not free for any use in the source country (see Template:FoP-USonly). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Works of authors who died in 1944 or earlier are regarded as free (this holds true for Slovenia). In regard to works from Slovenia, don't upload images to Commons if you can't prove with reliable sources that the work is anonymous and was originally published more than 70 years ago or that the author died before 1945, unless it is your own work or you have a permission from the author to publish it under a free license, which should be forwarded to Commons:OTRS. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See also this image, which is ok, of course. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed answer. If I understand correctly, then: it is not possible to use an image like this (Slovenian sculpture, artist died in 1990) on English Wikipedia under any circumstances until 2061, right? That is, the Dobrunje article does specifically discuss this monument, but it is an image that is not eligible for Commons and it is a sculpture that is not free for any use in the source country. Doremo (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• In regard to copyright, you may freely use and photograph this work for all non-economic purposes in Slovenia (as long as you don't make a 3D-copy of the work). There are other limitations regarding cultural heritage etc.
• You can't upload it to Commons, because economic use must be permitted for images to be hosted there.
• You may use this image in the article about Dobrunje, if it used under the conditions specified at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy.

Particulary consider: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

--Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I think that sufficiently clarifies the policy for me. Doremo (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Navarino

Sorry, but I fail to see the relevance to the account of this battle of what was done with the ships' bells in Sveti Jost. This is tangential material which surely belongs to the article on Sveti Jost, and not to Battle of Navarino. Otherwise, anyone could add info on any other memorabilia e.g. Codrington's pipe or underpants?

Wiki Medicine

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Funny, Peter florjancic article

Looks like Peter Florjančič himself posted on Wiki.

In this edit below Florjančič apparently added a link to his website with the words; "My web site" =) hahaha :P http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Florjan%C4%8Di%C4%8D&oldid=505327366

Mrwho00tm (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Although it could be anyone. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Maribor protests

Hey there! Could you check out the new 2012 Maribor protests page, and maybe also set up a "task force" of more experienced users to tackle the many issues there? Unfortunately, I don't have time these days (weeks). Also, there are several related pages being set up (such as Sheriff (Slovenia)) that would also need some serious editing. As far as I see it, the main issue is the POV problem, but also an idiosyncratic use of English (mostly bad syntax and inadequate terminology). Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm also hard-pressed with time these days so I won't be able to do much work. In regard to the content, I'd recommend you contact User:Yerpo or User:Tone. As for the bad English, User:Doremo is a native speaker and can help. Regards, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Municipality of Ankaran

Eleassar, could you take a minute to review this change by an anonymous user? As far as I can tell, based on this decision and the municipal website, the Municipality of Ankaran has been alive and well since 2011, but perhaps I've missed some recent news. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I know the Constitutional Court of Slovenia has published the decision about the establishment of this municipality in the Official Gazette,[25] but the election will take place only in 2014..[26] It does exist formally, but not de facto. See also e.g. [27]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Doremo (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dragonja as de facto border

Hi! I was wondering what was the reasoning behind removal of Jutarnji list source for the de facto border status of a part of the Dragonja River course - the newspaper article says "Pred mostom preko Dragonje Hrvatska je postavila svoj granični prijelaz ..." (in English: "Croatia set up its border crossing in front of the bridge spanning Dragonja... " therefore it is a statement of facts on the ground. A look at the satellite image of the area confirms exactly that - Croatian and Slovenian border crossings are situated on the opposite sides of the Bridge, so why do you think that the report is biased?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, although it's evident that the border crossing has been set up near the bridge, this does not make the river bed a de facto border. The border could for example run (de facto or de iure) several meters to the south or to the north of the river. There are also several statements in the article for which I consider it has been written from the Croatian point of view (e.g. "Ono što je naše, naše je!" etc.) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There are ample sources claiming the bridge, i.e. the river to be the line of control. For instance there's this Slovene source and this Croatian source explicitly saying that the Croatian police controls southern bank at the bridge. De facto border is where the line of control actually is. De iure border is wherever the applicable arbitration commission decides to draw the line that is currently in dispute. Assuming you did not mean to claim Croatia controls the northern bank of the river, these should be sufficient.

On a further note, I really do not think that the JL article you removed was biased, at least not in terms of reporting of facts on the ground. Granted, JL editorializing may be expected to support Croatia's views of the dispute, as any Slovene newspaper is fully expected to reflect Slovene opinion on the matter.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The situation seems to be more complex and actually both countries exercise sovereignty over the disputed territory to some degree, although Croatia more so than Slovenia.[28] (e.g. land owners in the disputed area pay cadastral income to Slovenia and renters pay their rents to the Farm Land and Forest Fund of the Republic of Slovenia, the land lots have been sold twice etc.) I'll readd the removed sentence, but I'd recommend using this article as a reference, because it's in English and as far as I can see it summarises the situation without the unnecessary nationalist ballast. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point of view on the sourcing, I would not support using editorializing as references of anything except the paper's opinion on the matter, but a report that this or that police controls a specific territory as evidenced by preventing others from using a road or apprehending people, seems like a credible evidence of de facto control. That was the reason I introduced term of "de facto border" rather than "current border" in the article. News source editorializing is inevitable and it is not reserved for Croats and Slovenes - if you compare articles in say, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, covering the same political issue in the UK, or Austrian newspaper reporting on a hotly contested sausage name you'll notice similar editorial biases.

The fact that the river course is a line of control or de facto border between two countries is a noteworthy piece of information deserving a mention in an article on the river itself. What source is used to back that claim is completely irrelevant as long as it reported the fact reliably. I took a glance at the source you proposed and it seems fine to use in terms of reporting of the situation on the ground. Since it is in English I would prefer it to Slovene or Croatian language sources, but that does not amount to saying that Croatian or Slovene sources are somehow tainted and should be avoided in general - although editorializing should be disregarded in any case.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And on the final note, I have to correct myself. The map/sat image link above contains Kaštel border crossing site (i.e. incorrect one) rather it should be Plovanija map here - showing the border crossing adjacent to the river.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Slovenia in WWII

G'day Eleassar, I have a concern about this category. Slovenia did not exist as a country until after WWII. Why would we have a category that implies that Slovenia existed in WWII? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's true. It's just an umbrella term for all things related to what is now Slovenia that happened in WWII. Feel free to propose a rename: perhaps 'Slovene ethnic territory in World War II' or sth.. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What about 'WWII in the Slovene Lands'? or 'The Slovene Lands in WWII'? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think that the term 'Slovene Lands' is a historical term that was used before 1918. Its usage in later times would therefore be anachronistic. It would be best though if you asked User:Viator slovenicus who is a historian. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the term Slovenia is appropriate for WWII, although, of course, the entity as such didn't exist during the period (but so didn't Poland, for that matter ...). Officially, Slovenia came into existence at least in 1945. However, between 1918 and 1941, Slovenia became a geographical and, to a cartain extent, also an adiministrative term, which was quite regularily used. That's especially true for the late 1930s, when the Drava Banovina was referred to as "Slovenia" also in some official documents (especially, of course, by those published by the Banovina itself). It's interesting that the term was also used by the occupying forces sporadically (especially in the early period of the war). For example, in the first month of occupation (April-May 1941), before the creation of the Province of Ljubljana, the Italian administration referred to the Italian zone of occupation either as as "occupied Slovene territories", but also as "Occupied Slovenia" (Slovenia occupata). This was of course a semi-official use, but in my research I was surprised to find it in the most unexpected places, for example in the manifesto, published on behalf of the Italian administration, on the occasion of the creation of the Province of Ljubljana (that is, precisely at the moment when one would suppose this use to be obsolete!). Since I have it written down in my notes, let me just quote the text, issued by the occupying administration and published on the front page of the journal Jutro on May 4th, 1941, reading literary: "Il Duce concede alla Slovenia occupata (...) un ordinamento autonomo sotto la sovranita' di Roma" - "The Duce grants to the occupied Slovenia an autonomous /legal, administrative/ arrangement under the sovereignty of Rome." I think that if even the occupying forces used it from time to time (not to speak of all the local political forces, not only the resistance), it makes sense to use it. Besides, at least for the Italian historiography, it's quite common to write about the "Italian occupation of Slovenia" (just a handful of references: http://dev.dsmc.uniroma1.it/dprs/sites/default/files/436.html, http://www.libreriamilitare.com/prodotto.php?lang=en&id_prod=19310 - this one was even published by the Historical Office of the Headquarters of the Italian Army). Now, the problem is of course what you mean by "Slovenia", or, to be more precise, whether one includes the Slovenian Littoral as well. Of course, it would be meaningless no to do so, but one has to be aware that at the time, this was not considered to be Slovenia. About the "Slovene Lands" issue: I agree, it sounds a but too archaic for that period, it's mostly used for the period before 1918. Now, the issue is that in Slovenia, there's the term (almost exclusively used in ablative/locative), "na Slovenskem", which makes things much more easier in this regard, but it's almost impossible to translate; it could rendered as "in the Slovene Lands" (and, as a matter of fact, it's exactly the same meaning), only that it doesn't mention the "Slovene Lands" :) ... It basically means, "the Slovene ethnic territory" and, strictu sensu, it can be used as a synonym for Slovenia (again, without actually mentioning the term). If you ask me, I would go for Slovenia, as it was also widely used in all sorts of documents also before 1941 (with a quite clear meaning), but one should point out that the borders of Slovenia after 1945 were not the same as before the war. But then again, if we think about Poland, this is also true. Viator slovenicus (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, that allays my concerns. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Newspeak geography

Hi! I'd take care of regular insertion of POV or unsourced material myself, but this one may require a rollback, so I thought to drop you a note. User:Dorje77 appears to have solved Croatia-Slovenia border dispute in an original way - resurrecting the Free Territory of Trieste in the article on the FTT, Adriatic Sea etc, including reworked maps - quite an effort I might say!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that an administrator tool, such as a rollback, is warranted? This should have been simply undone with an appropriate rationale. It's also not possible to rollback articles after they have been edited by other people. -Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've manually undone some of his edits. If there are any remaining ones, feel free to fix them (with an appropriate explanation). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Advice please: Žirovnica, Žirovnica

Eleassar, could you look at the recent changes to the page Žirovnica, Žirovnica? An anonymous user continues to redirect the settlement article to the municipality article (and apparently isn't reading the talk page). Is it possible to have some kind of protection put on the article? You've got more experience than me in this area. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the page from moves and warned the user. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Doremo (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

ISBN Searching

I've started a new discussion at Wikipedia_talk:ISBN#ISBN_Searching, I note that you previously were interested in this page and would be grateful for any comments. Apologies in advance if this is not relevant. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)