User talk:Bggoldie~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello, Bggoldie~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --HappyCamper 21:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it only supports en.wp for the moment. sorry. kate.

Arab article

Hey, you know deleting it is not really my call. I'm not an administrator. Even if I was, I wouldn't delete it. It has potential but the reason for my delete vote was that I simply didn't feel that it was notable. That's all.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 00:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be brutally honest with you, probably not. The section has mostly delete votes on it.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib

Thanks for the message on my talk page. When I first voted Delete there was no info in the article. You were right to point out that its being expanded. Since you are working on it I'll change my vote of course. Take care. --JJay 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for me. I removed my weak, maybe at some point it will be expanded to reflect his place in history. Good work. gren グレン 03:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. -Haon 13:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As above, but I did not get your message until today. Glad to see that the article has been kept following expansion. Good work Goldie. --Me or a Robin 09:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2005 Nalchik attack

Bk0

Your latest post to the talk page makes it clear what the dispute is about, so I see no problem in leaving the totallydisputed tag. Thank you for listing your problems with the article. I've posted my responses to them, hopefully we (along with the rest of Wikipedia) can get the article into decent shape. I agree that it is not of very high quality currently. My only concern is to see it as informative and neutral as possible. --Bk0 03:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Прокурор / Prosecutor

The status of Prosecutor General of Russia is very similar to Prosecutor General of Ukraine it is a quasy-independent power separate from both the Executive and from the Judiciary. I am actually surprised I cannot find a description of the office in wikipedia. I would do some research and will probably write an article in the next few days. abakharev 07:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Macedonia

To begin, I'd say that if I knew the way to resolve the dispute in a way that was neutral and satisfied all involved parties, I'd be at the UN instead of editing Wikipedia in my spare time. Most WP:NPOV disputes, in my opinion, can be resolved through very strict application of WP:CITE and WP:NOR. In this case, however, it seems a little unweildly to have a full discussion of the naming problem in every one of literally hundreds of articles. I would say that there is another Wikipedia guideline that can help us here, however, and that is to always remember the reader. Assume that each article is written for a reader who knows absolutely nothing at all about the region. For that reader, we need to elegantly differentiate between Macedonia the geographical region, Macedonia the collection of prefectures in Greece, and Macedonia the former province of Yugoslavia which is now its own state. I'd suggest that using "Former Yugoslavian Republic of" is both accurate and widely used to distinguish the latter. Surely the POV of that country's citizenry is not that they were never part of Yugoslavia! In the Greece article, there is no need to slap in "Former Yugoslavian" before mentioning the Republic of Macedonia, because it appears as part of a list of bordering countries, and, from that context, is clearly a seperate, distinct political entity. In the Macedonia (Greece) article, however, the goal needs to be to not confuse the reader into thinking that there is some Republic that West Macedonia, Central Macedonia, East Macedonia and Thrace belong to. Jkelly 17:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Blocked IP

I've unblocked that IP. (It was used earlier in the day to engage in systematic vandalism.) I'm sorry for any inconvenience. —Wayward ^Talk 08:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Some other user" from the "Talk:Macedonian language" theme (I followed the lin provided by you toward here).

You said: "it is not that simple and cannot happen overnight". Good phylosophy for the people is a phylosophy that there is no value in their lives except the individual one (meaning: ignore "THE-BIG-ISSUE" polititians (nationalists etc), put them away, discredit them, laugh in their faces (nevertheless, of course, develope a serious state army simbolicaly just for show - to ensure the sense of safety, and so that other states don't think that they could pass their defense should they have some silly teritorial issues); people (as individuals) should just seek for their individual interests; and generaly making peace with everyone else, saying that they as a majority do not agree with those who upset the situation - because: what else is there important except peace and ability for everyone to achieve things for themselves (dying for any cause is absolutely silly (what more: there is always better solution; war is stupid - my theory is that wars are organised by the ones who benefit somehow from the tragedy of both sides (how else to explain giving weapons to people and charging them invainly to their deaths?!?)))... Only interest of an individual is for him/her to lead a normal life... you get what I mean...). Having that in mind there is no reason why things couldn't happen overnight (you just need to show people things that would assure them in the phylosophy of individual wellbeing above everything else (that way people couldn't be regruted by all sorts of ill-intentioned organisations)). Of course it is also important to let people feel the unity and believe in it inocently (thorough sport usualy).

I think that the good solution is what is good for the people in present and future, nevermind historical "facts" that are bad for the unity (word 'fact' under quote marks - because noone actually knows the whole truth (that must be pointed-out, so people would think more rationaly) e.g. Josip Broz was proposing brotherhood and unity, yet he fragmented state and republics more than it was ever in the history (things simply doesn't add-up there (plus the whole Milosevic's regime is practicaly set by the Croat-based comunists) - so what's the truth (also having Tito's national political past in mind (WW1 and so on)))). I say historical fairy-tails should be bent into shape (explained in suitable ways) so that unitiy superimoses (not the other way around (whatever the ACTUAL truth is!), because people benefit from it economicaly, culturaly etc). It is always good to unite if there are language similarities (of course: respect of the bounderies must be secured inside the new state, but those should be provincial or alike (to disable separatism), everything should be looked-upon thorouh economic interest of municipals - that level (openly) with respect to a state budget for common benefits - disableing nationalist purposes for division), stating that the change of borders is not even theoreticaly possible - so the one who speaks of such speaks absolute nonsense and shouldn't be taken seriously what ever he blabbers about thatwise (it doesn't matter what polititians say, only thing that matters is what it PRODUCES (so the one whose seriously persistant story is analised down to divisioning should be branded with "enemy of the state" title with no reprecautions on it's own (just to put it in front of title 'dr' for example))). Everything that state does should be with a calm friendly face displayed (what all complex mechanisms are actually there is another story). My point: it can be done "overnight", you just need to learn people to think for them selves individualy, and to wathc everything thorough economics and culture... (and it shouldn't be hard since everyone already has an interest of self-well-being...). The future interest is important not the remanents of the past.

You said: "Cannot agree that Slavic tribes were not capable to name and were only adopting names from the others."

Who said contrary? I'm not discussing namegiving capabilities, I'm just saying that national names are often aquired after settleing the theritory, although the "new people" have nothing to do with aboriginals (particulary Bulgarians, Macadonians etc in this case).

You said: "The ancient state of Macedon is different from the state of Ancient Athens"

Actualy I didn't intend to be specific in thet text; when I said Greek and Macadonian - I thought of the whole culture in general which is even today mostly recognised in the term Bisantine/Ancient Greeks etc. It's their typical type of (ancient) culture - it derived from ancient Greece and spread all around... So even ancient Macadonian culture is a legacy og ancient Greece however you look at it (that type of reasoning).

You've said: "Sorry, but I cannot agree with you about Bulgarian origin from some "Turkish name/tribe"."

Not Turkish; turkic. We are not talking about Turkey and it's history, but about some group of people (tribes etc) similar to the one of the Turks which fused with Slavs today known as Bulgarians...

You said: "People of Macedonia do have the right of self-determination."

That's an absolute truth, but isn't there a greater interest. Besides, by uniting they don't lose their identity at all - so what do we talk about here. Term 'Balkanian' is neutral for both, and it's truth that both Macadonians and Bulgarians are Balkanians (only now it would be in national terms).

"The name Slavia is already overloaded with (bad) memories, as it is the same but without the "Yugo-" part."

It's not even near. By emphasizing the word Slav you give more ideas about the fact that there are the same people in question. The errors of those before were that they didn't realy unite nations but group them (uniting would be proclaming one (single) nation and preserving culural heritage of all the nations that consistitute the new one in that new one, alowing everyone to say what they are but making point that it's not national any more but only teritorial, shaking thi foundations of people's believe about their previous nationality by mentioninf dacts about aquisition of even those national names from someone else (Macadonia, Bulgars, Servia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croats etc etc)).

Nevertheless those are all just random solutions; as I've said, the real, permanent solution would be to find an ancient common name for those two groups of nations - something real and completely correct about what no-one could argue. All for economic benefit of people as individuals (by ensuring the common wealth in resources and better ussage of them, greater safety even in shear numbers, making politics boring for the people so they don't talk about it and think about their own wellbeing instead (improving science, culture, industry etc), living a better life).

"Are you in turn ready to start speaking Croatian and to accept it as language in this fictious Slavia?"

This "Slavia" idea is not quite serious (I say once again). No one talked about what you're saying here. In the case we were talking about here (on the other hand) all would be talking only Slavian and Balkanian (only with different dialects and sub-dialects (today's national and regional names)).

"And finally about Albanians - there are many good people among them."

Of course. People are people, but we weren't talking about that either. I mentioned Albanians as some name for an abstract entity that is always connected to the crisis both in Macadonia and Serbia today. They are the ones making problems. (Tito potentiated quantity above quality of life on Kosovo when Albanians are in question (that makes social tensions because people are poor and not so educated if they stay there). The issue was obviously pre-planed. 1974. greater rights were gevien to Albanians and then they missused it by fireing people from their jobs, stealing their property, not processing it in courts; which later, when naive Milosevic came to revision the given trust, was missused to make a silly paralell to the inter-republic relationships (dirty game played by Croat polititians - all a plan that obviosly had begun with Josip Broz Tito, to make Croatia independent and avoid to suffer consequeces for erradicating Serbian population in Croatia and Herzegovina during WW2)). Later Croats shake hands and celebrate Albanian-Croatian friendhip (in public!!?!).

And about "Again I have to remind you that this page is about Macedonian language and is not meant to cover Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Yes, they are related to Macedonia's political past & future but not so much to the language itself."

...OF COURSE it's not about language! IT IS only about politics. Why else should there be an argument about the language...

Bulgarian adminship

Hi. That was five months ago, so I can't remember who had complained. The issue was his inappropriate deletions and other actions, so how many people complained was irrelevant since I checked for myself that he'd been doing that. If there had been any consensus on the wiki for him to regain adminship, he could have done so, but chose not to. Please understand that lack of adminship doesn't prevent someone editing. I agree you don't want to waste editors there, but nothing is stopping this user from editing. Angela . 14:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reiterated at Angela's talk page. -- Goldie (tell me) 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't protect those pages. The user concerned did this himself. Any admin on the wiki is able to unprotect them. I'm not an admin there, so I can't do that myself. Have you looked at bg:Special:Log to see what this user had done? I'm sure it will make the situation very clear. It was the community who requested action, and as a steward, I carried out that request, since no one on the wiki is able to de-admin another user. The wiki has a bureaucrat, who can re-admin the user if the community agrees, and it has many admins who can unprotect pages. I don't see any need for steward involvement in this currently. Have you spoken to any current users on the wiki about this? Angela . 18:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Angela. --5ko 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Здравей The Engineer съм, виждам, че става дума за мен, но не разбирам английски, би ли ми превел. Също така имам евентуален отговор към Анжела (евентуално също за превеждане), който навремето не дадох пак по причина, че не съм сигурен какво ми е написала. Предварително благодаря. --Nbvcnbvc 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Да, става дума за теб и искам да разбера какво точно е станало, за да придобия представа какви хора има на БГ-Уики (в частност общия ни любимец). Исках да ти пиша преди време на личната страница и бях изненадан. Вече имам теория, но ще съм ти много благодарен ако можеш да устискаш още малко. След като разбера версията на другите ще се надявам да се запозная и с твоята. Ако засега не ми я кажеш ще избегнем потенциални обвинения за предубеденост (макар че спрямо "другарчето" ни не крия че съм предубеден). Също така ти обещавам да преведа цялата дискусия и отново те моля за отсрочка.

Виждам, че преди време яката си напалил моторетката и вероятно е имало защо. Ако събереш сили - пиши пак в нашето Уики и стискай зъби като ти пипат запетайките и кавичките, все пак за да се гласува трябват редакции и все от някъде трябва да дойдат. Поздрави, Goldie (tell me) 18:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Мерси за подкрепата, редакции имам доста и когато имам възможност ще гласувам. Станах враг на колегите админи в момента в който предложих да бъдат преизбирани през определено време. За гласуването можех да го проваля естествено, но помолих тези които бяха на моя страна да не гласуват и се самоубих фактически. Истината е проста: няколко от първите админи въпреки добрата си актьорска игра, всъщност закрилят троловете ни и ги използват като гонители на неудобните им редактори. Трябваше ми доста време докато проумея това и доста лични разговори, но колкото и невероятно и конспираторски да изглежда, се оказва доста близо до истината. След като се махнах изглежда, вече нямаше кой да пречи и рязко спадна броя на постоянните редактори и надявам се всеки вижда кой за какво е виновен. :( на 22 място паднахме :(.--Nbvcnbvc 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

пп Когато свирнеш, поствам, моята версия на събитията, вече съм я подготвил.--Nbvcnbvc 19:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

I'm glad to help even though my additions are minor. Thanks. Best wishes. --Mohammed Khalil 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA

Hi, Bggoldie

We have edited together the article October 2005 Nalchik attack maybe you would like to look on my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev? abakharev 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. It is way too late as 24 minutes after your post the voting was closed. To be honest, I would have abstained anyway as I am not that active on English Wiki and have not worked enough with you to have any opinion. Sorry for being unable to help. -- Goldie (tell me) 02:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was my fault. First I thought the requirement is 2/3+1 vote that I was quite comfortable with so I did not advertised the RfA in time as much as I could, the second I have mixed-up the summer saving time (I am in the south hemisphere) and thought I have a couple of hours left. :-(. I do not see myself fighting some bias on Wikipedia. It is just so happen that I know a few areas better that an average Wiki-editor and some things worse. There is no point in writing about the areas I know worse. I thought that Russian-related topics might be of better interest to an average user than say numerical methods or plastic rheology. abakharev 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ant colony

I saw that you participated in the discussion regarding the verfiability of some of the content in Ant colony. I've provided a source for each claim in the paragraph that was removed. Who'd have thought it was true? ;) Let me know if there's any more problems. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 13:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Що да сливаме БНТ с Канал 1?

Засега двете статии са малки, но имат потенциал за отделно развитие. Виж примерно румънците, имат си за Televiziunea Română, имат си и за каналите (три статии за канали, за всички без един), притежавани от компанията. Поне аз мисля, че не е нужно, пък ти си кажи доводите. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 15:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Защото те си имат три, а ние сме го закъсали и си продадохме втория :-/ В настоящото състояние, където една телевизия = един канал, не виждам нужда от две статии преди да се разрастнат. Предполагам, че дори и да се напише нещо за бившата Втора програма (после Ефир 2) няма да е много, че да бъде повече от секция. Примера може да не е удачен заради размера на статията, но BTV (Bulgarian television channel) не е разделена на две статии. Разбира се може и да не съм прав. -- Goldie (tell me) 07:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resistor images

Hi, I uploaded the three Resistor symbols to Wikimedia Commons and tagged the existing images with Template:NowCommonsThis. I haven't used Wikimedia Commons before; did I do it correctly? I hope you find them useful. EdC 23:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]