User talk:Asterion/Archive1

Please check any links you put into an article. One of your links to NATO led to a Microsoft home page, which we don't want, SqueakBox 16:32, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

There was a typo in the format, now fixed Asterion 18:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

It looks fine now. I couldn't see a good reason to have a special anti NATO section but having anti NATO articles is a good thing. I like the Solana article you put in but we already have it as the 5th article in the link section, SqueakBox 19:58, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

===>No immediate solutions I genuinely believe that Fayssal edits in good faith, but I also believe that he has been heavily propagandized or can't see beyond his own political biases. On the other hand, Daryou has deliberately removed pertinent information, and I don't think has as much charity regarding actual neutrality in the dispute. I don't have a particular way of stopping their edits, other than contacting an administrator, and seeing if he thinks they amount to vandalism, or locking the pages. I think the best route is to discuss the issue on the Talk pages, as Fayssal has made some germane points on Western Sahara's page, and I think I should edit the page with them in mind. Justin (koavf) 18:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I have compromised before i.e. replacing "illegaly occupied" by "occupied" but he still reverts them to his original edits. Asterion 19:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I'm not a vandal and I will not be one. I just restored the page of WS to a previous version of Fayssal that's all. I'm trying to discuss (see the page of discussion of WS), You'll see that Koavf admit that he's not neutral. he is imposing informations about SADR (flag president, etc) in an infobox. I think that this infobox musn't be here. I can stop editing this page if Koavf stop doing it. Daryou 21:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please help me to erease the infobox of SADR from the page WS. Koavf is accusing me of vandalism just because I don't have the same POV of him. He recognized his pro-polisario opinion so I don't understand why he continues to edit the page while he's not neutral??!!! I just reverted the page to a previous version (Last Fayssal's version) So why is he accusing me of vandalism and not Fayssal or Icairns (see the history of the page), Is it just because I'm new in WP or what??. Please help me. I just want to discuss. Daryou 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best way to resolve the dispute is to request a Mediation, what do you think about it? Daryou 20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the view that secret Arianists helped Muslims generalized? What about the part of gate openers played by Jews in Medieval chronicles? Is it true or just anti-Semitic? --Error 01:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much published in English, I am afraid. I would recommend you any of the books by Luisa Isabel Alvarez de Toledo. She is the current Duchess of Medina Sidonia, and holder of one of the largest historical archives in Spain. All her books are in Spanish only.

You could also try to dig out an old book in French called Les arabes n'ont jamais envahi l'Espagne, by Ignacio Olagüe. However I am critic of this one for several reasons. If you manage to find it, also look out for Les arabes ont bien envahi l'Espagne, an article published in Annales E.S.C, by Prof. Guichard.

Regarding Sephardim, check the separate wikipedia article, recently updated Asterion 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who wrote the "Modern Spain" article. I know my english level is quite sub-par, especially relating to translation skills and spelling mistakes, however, there was no data for Spanish history from the restoration (1870s) until the modern days, and I was studying it at the time, so I decided to create the basic articles to draw some attention to it. And you are indeed right, my english level is only secondary, as i am a native Spanish living in Spain Zespris 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zespris, I did not intend to offend you. Wikipedia is a common project and I was not criticising you. Simply it was a call for someone else to help out. You have done more than enough just creating the original article. Saludos, Asterion 21:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Asterion, veo que aquí también habéis tenido problemas con el inefable yanito... Él solito se descalifica.

Estoy buscando fuentes sobre Gibraltar y, aunque no tengo muchos libros en casa, me gustaría saber la fuente de tu afirmación "Of the 1,200 registered families, only 22 were allowed to stay". Es para incluirlo en el artículo en español. Gracias y un saludo --Ecemaml 06:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recently WikiProject Galicia has been created. Perhaps you are interested in joining us to help improving Galicia articles in English Wikipedia. --Stoni^(talk) 14:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ai vist que parlas occitan! Avem besonh d'ajuda e de contribucions per far avançar lo projècte en lenga d'òc... Ès benvengut se vols participar! :)

A lèu! [[1]]

Cedric31

You seem to have removed on Feb. 25 the subheading about the validity and views about the term. I know (i was one of the contributors, see the talk page) that it was far from perfect. The term and their implications are highly controversial, and we wanted thru this heading to put a balanced account of the different views about it. Wikipedia should be NPOV, and that includes to show in cases like this the different facets of the problem, so I think it should be restored (and if possible with a higher quality redaction. Waiting for your comments --Wllacer 08:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Saludos. No creo que el nacional-bolchevismo deba estar en el listado de ultraizquierda, más bien junto con los fascistas. Pero es una batalla que doy por perdida. No se si eres turco-chipriota o greco-chipriota, la verdad es que me da igual.--83.165.70.235 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Creo que eres de Creta con lo cual he metido la gamba. Sorry.--83.165.70.235 22:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gracias por el apoyo. Estoy de acuerdo contigo. No soy chipiotra. El alias que vengo usando viene de un cuento de Borges. Saludos -- Asterion 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not within 24 hours. So, it is not 3RR. He is an admin, he knows the rules. --KimvdLinde 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Asterion 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC) You are welcome. --KimvdLinde 00:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give the diffs (like this: [2]), not links to the page. I can, in any case, only see three reverts. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to check — are you happy now about how to provide the diffs? (I did try to give a link to a relevant Help page, but I couldn't find one; if I do, I'll come back and add it.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not reintroduce copyrighted images into these templates. The only justification Wikipedia has for keeping them on its system is fair use, and fair use will not apply in any circumstance this image is used. This is to prevent the Wikimedia Foundation from liability for infringing copyrights. Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Party logos can be used freely in Wikipedia. You should do your homeworks before making pointless accusations Asterion 21:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are very wrong. Our fair use policy is *very* strict, rightly and necessarily so. Don't abuse it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your confusion. Yes, the images are allowed in the article namespace (e.g. for Labour Party (UK)), but nowhere else. This is to make sure we fit in with the fair use criteria. Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's right, as you'll see in our fair use policy and please remember our no personal attacks and civility policies. Thank you. Chick Bowen 22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not me who needs reminding about civility and I did not personally attacked anyone, my friend. I was accused of uploading copyrighted images. Well, I did not upload the LibDem logo, I simply linked to the already uploaded file, as present in the article. As far as Wikipedia goes, logos can benefit from Fair Use as long as it does not imply that Wikipedia is endorsed by the company or organisation depicted by such logo. This is clearly not the case. The insertion of the logos does not imply recognition or endorsement by Wikipedia or viceversa. It is common sense. Asterion 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to say that, no, that's not Wikipedia's fair use policy. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use. Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that keeping "fair use" images in your userspace is also against Wikipedia policy. Please remove them as soon as possible. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]