User talk:Pundit/2007

Pundit's Talk Page - speak, friend, and enter! :) Whenever you comment here, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. If you don't want to use the add a new message link, please add all new comments to the bottom of the page. Let's both try to be civil, and refrain from personal attacks. I am not going to follow your talk page in a conversation - please, either reply here, or notify me, if you're replying on your own talk page.

---

15 May Never forget about Godwin's law in your posts! Welcome to my talk page!

Add a new message

This is the archivized talk page for 2007

---

the first...

...shall come last. Welcome to my user talk page. So as to encourage the shy ones, I make the first posting myself :) Pundit | utter 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Pundit/2007! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning users

Hi Pundit! I just happen to came across a warning posted by you and I noticed it was a {{test2}}. May I suggest that you switch to the new standardized templates. Try to take a look (if you haven't done so already) to WP:TWINKLE, it may suits your need. By the way, if I recall right (I may very well do not), test template should be substed → {{subst:test2}}. Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Qualitative research‎

Please note that by "spam", I mean exactly what I said, "The editor added the links and only the links to multiple articles. That is the very definition of spamming." The quality of the links has nothing to do with it, only how they were added in violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI. If editors discuss them, as I suggested they should, and find them useful, then by all means they should be added back in. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Positive reinforcement needed

See [1]. I hope some kind words can fix this misunderstanding; -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:CIA Eastern-Europe-map.png

Hi, as I understand the CIA Factbook does not say Russia is part of Eastern Europe ("Location: "Northern Asia (the area west of the Urals is considered part of Europe), bordering the Arctic Ocean, between Europe and the North Pacific Ocean") [2] [3]. It appears that they are classifing Russia as its own definition altogether. Could you de-highlight Russia from this [4] image accordingly.--Miyokan (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your comment. I am not certain what to do, as the CIA Factbooks is imprecise in this matter (which is not a surprise, as Russia is a really big country). They classify it as Northern Asia (the area west of the Urals is considered part of Europe). I added this info into the body of the text. On the map virtually only the European part is visible, so there is no need to alter it - unless there was a need to add a bigger picture, covering also the Asian part of Russia (in that case feel free to do so, but I don't think it is necessary in the article on Eastern Europe, after all). Cheers, Pundit|utter 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that they do not say anywhere that Russia is an Eastern European country, nor that the European part of Russia is in Eastern Europe. Yes, it says "the area west of the Urals is considered part of Europe", but it does not say that Russia is considered an Eastern European country or anything about this European area being part of "Eastern Europe". Thus the map is simply wrong when it says "Eastern Europe according to CIA Factbook". As I said, it appears that they are classifing Russia as its own "area" altogether (i.e., Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Southeastern Europe, Russia, Northeastern Europe, etc.) rather than belonging to any of these other "areas" of Europe. De-highlighting Russia from the map is pertinent.--Miyokan (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was following this logic: "Eastern" is a geographical term. Usually referring to the East. Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine are Eastern European. The parts of Russia, which are East from there, but West from its Asian part, and in the same time are European, are therefore Eastern European. However, I understand your factual concerns. I update the article as you asked, following the CIA factbook definitions. Pundit|utter 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia shouldn't be highlighted at all. You are assuming that the CIA Factbook classifies the European part of Russia as Eastern European, when it simply does not say that! The fact is that nowhere does the CIA say that Russia is in Eastern Europe, and assuming that the CIA classifies Russia as in Eastern Europe by "following your own logic" is wrong. The added caption you put, "Russia is classified as Northern Asian, only the shown part West of the Urals is called European" is merely telling us which part of Russia is in Europe, and which part of Russia is in Asia - elementary facts which are not disputed nor relevant to the concept of 'Eastern Europe', and it tells us nothing of whether the CIA classifies Russia as part of Eastern Europe.--Miyokan 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read the legend carefully, you'll see that Eastern Europe is in orange, while Russia has a clear disclaimer on its Northern Asian belonging, as well as on its part being European. There is no confusion whatsoever. Remember, that we cannot mislead the readers into thinking that no part of Russia is European, which could be the case if Russia was not in the picture at all. Wikipedia is to educate and provide knowledge - we cannot omit facts that are relevant and important for our users (and I assure you that cutting Russia out would, in my view, cause lots of misunderstandings). The legend clearly distinguishes Russia as not belonging to Eastern Europe according to CIA Factbook, and so does the text of the article. If you disagree, I suggest we ask third party editors for their opinion. Pundit|utter 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but to nullify your concerns I changed the first sentence in the image description. I hope this ends our debate and constructively enhances Wiki. cheers Pundit|utter 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I slightly changed the Russia caption for clarity. It's been good to have a constructive debate. Thanks.--Miyokan 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Greco Turkish War

Hi, i just wondered if it is possible for you to show a similar interest in the article, as you reverted the change from `Turkish masssacres of Greeks` to `Turkish massacres of Christians`, as if such a naming is so distinctly important..

Check this, Tsourkpk is adding his own point of view and completely unrelated info into the section of `Greek scorched earth policy`..[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.198.157 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Redirect

Well as for the code difference, I'm not sure if there is a difference, but the most used one I've seen is "#REDIRECT INSERT PAGE HERE". What happened was I was trying to fix the redirect, because the original wasn't set up exactly right, so I submitted the correction. Then I got an edit conflict message, and at a rough glance, didn't see much of a difference, so I resubmitted it again. So when I was referring to fixing to redirect, I meant the first one not the second. Hopefully that clears things up! Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

kenkojuku

It technically meets the A7 criteria for SD, putting it as prod was a favor to him because he was a new user. The article asserts non-notability. It is just a couple of local dojos, its no JKA anything like that. RogueNinja_talk 17:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Thanks for the box, but what do the characters mean? I cant really read Japanese. RogueNinja_talk 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the userbox. I appreciate it.
Revy D. (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

IGI Global

Hi Pundit,

was wondering why you put in this entry. Is this a real publishing house or just a scam to sell publications to people with money? I have never heard of this before, and selling dictionaries for 500 $ a pop seems a little over the top. --WiseWoman (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)