User talk:Andrej Shadura

Removed articles

Here are the copies of some of articles that were (or can be) removed. Hope nobody will remove them from here

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Belamp, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Belamp/dwm. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that file is not non-free, it's MIT-licensed! -- Bełamp (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Andrew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (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) 10:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blueberry move

Hi. I wanted to discuss your move of the page blueberry to Vaccinium Cyanococcus. I dispute this move because "blueberry", although it might not be used all around the world, is the common name used by reliable sources. If you take a look at the reference section, all of the sources use the word blueberry. Also, as an example, the article apple is titled apple because most, if not all, sources use "apple". Can you explain, in detail, why you moved it? Thanks. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. Give me a {{tb}} once you respond. [reply]

Hi. That particular kind of plant is called blueberry in North America only, but nowhere else. In contrast, what is called also bilberry usually is referred to as blueberry. However, that fact was impossible to find out from the article about North American blueberry. Also, an article about European blueberry isn't named 'European blueberry' but just uses the name of species. Therefore I think it's reasonable to rename the article about North American blueberry, and to set up a disambiguation page and redirects (European blueberry and North American blueberry). If you have any other idea on how to make both blueberries equally easy to find without using terms obscure for non-biologists, I'm all open for proposals. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, how about we write an article about the blueberries as a whole (American, European, wild, whatever), and then make two (or more) different articles about the N.A. and European blueberries? Thekillerpenguin (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea. Feel free to implement :) Unfortunately, I don't have enough time for that, and I'm no writer after all, so I don't think I'm able to perform that job well enough. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping the guys at Wikiproject plants to recruit some help if they agree. Just checking if my idea is not that crazy (^_^). Thanks for chatting anyway. d(^_^d) Thekillerpenguin (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the controversial move and just saw this conversation so I thought I'd drop a note. I reverted the move for a few reasons. First, it was completely undiscussed. See WP:RM. It was also not in line with WP:FLORA, the flora naming convention. Normally I'd be happy about an article title being shifted toward the scientific name, but blueberry seems to be the most commonly used name to refer to this collection of species (a key point) in reliable sources. This is not about what it's known in your part of the world or in mine. It's about what this group of species is collectively called in reliable sources. The article blueberry isn't just about the North American species; it's circumscription is about the section so it would encompass the proposal above, it just needs to be improved. I would say it should remain at it's title, however, probably per WP:ENGVAR. Similar situations at other fruit and vegetable articles have ended up in keeping the article at the original title, e.g. the article is the American term rutabaga not swede and all together separate from the other vegetable turnip. Complicated stuff, no doubt! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Belarusian settlements naming

Done: The entire discussion has been moved, per request, to the relevant section on the Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script 'Talk page'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Mantis Bug Tracker, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. I'm not sure why you would replace a link to RhodeCode with a link to Kallithea (software) when the reference is clearly about RhodeCode. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Kallithea is a free software fork of RhodeCode, so what's cited on the link applies to it as well, and as it's free software, I think it should be preferred over proprietary software, which RhodeCode has recently become. -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a better option would be to remove mention of both altogether, as Mantis clearly can be integrated with lots of systems quite similarly. There isn't any special Mantis-specific code neither in RhodeCode, nor in Kallithea. -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kallithea (software)

The article Kallithea (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Independent reliable sources with significant coverage are required by the notability guideline. I cannot find any on Google, I think it's just too soon for this article. -- intgr [talk] 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- intgr [talk] 10:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that it may be a bit early, but we'll receive more references as the project is being recognised by the community. Not sure if this counts as a reliable source, but it's definitely independent: [1]. I think keeping the page for the time being doesn't harm anyone. -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM sums it up. The article can be restored at WP:REFUND once it passes the notability criteria. And no that's not a reliable source. -- intgr [talk] 21:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please comment

on this revert ? --Jakubt (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The original statement was correct, yours wasn't so. I also didn't seem grammatically correct to me. If you want to say that Jessie development is going on now, better state that as a separate sentence, not trying to amend this one. I couldn't come up with one, so the better thing was this revert. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I am not an native speaker, so please help me to figure out the right way to state this. I am quite familiar with Debian release system and my point is this; the sentence "Debian is still in development, working on the unstable distribution." is very confusing for someone who came to the page without knowing much about Debian. I do not know what you are trying to say with it. Does it mean that Debian is not dead project and still beeing developed? Does it state that Debian is "not finished yet" and it is "still in development"? The second part of the sentence sounds little unrelated to the first part as well. Is sounds like "The guys form Debian are working on something unstable". The usage of unstable is quite confusing, especially in connection with word "distribution". I feel that even changing unstable to jessie, would help the matters. I would appreciate your language advise on this. --Jakubt (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker either, but I feel your way of saying this thing is more incorrect than the previous variant. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the statement in question. Hopefully, my copy edit has clarified the problem. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is even worse :( ‘Unstable’ doesn't mean ‘has problems’, not at all. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Yes, I see what you mean. Sheesh, I should have double-checked my 'improvement'. I've changed it to "Unstable" and left it italicized in order to distinguish it as a proper noun and not the adjectival form of the word. In English, proper nouns are written with a capital letter (hence Adobe, Photoshop, Mac, Windows, etc.). Feel free to trout me if this is off the mark! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Speed limits in Slovakia

Hello, Belamp. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Speed limits in Slovakia, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of pages with this sort of information about other countries. Also, WP:NOTHOWTO isn't a valid reason for deletion here, it's not done in a howto way at all. Removing. --Andrew Shadura (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Little Interpreted Language for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Little Interpreted Language 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/Little Interpreted Language 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. ― Padenton|✉ 15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing old references

Hi, instead of removing references with broken links as here, please check if the reference can be found at another URL, or instead replace them with links to archived versions e.g. on web.archive.org. In this case I could trivially find the reference's new URL by searching the web for the article title. Wikipedia articles with insufficient references may be deleted. --Vladimir (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trams

Love your articles on trams. Please remember not to link years, dates, and common terms ("tram", for example, is ok linked in this context, though). Flags—we try to minimise them unless there's a particular reasons for inclusion. Year ranges, no gaps (2013–2014).

Thanks. Tony (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marian Kotleba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SME. 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) 09:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring on BitKeeper

What is the reason for your repeated edit warring without even giving a reason?

Please have a look at the article and learn that even the article mentions that the code started in 1998.

Here is a quote from a mailing list from 1998 that verifies that there is no fact based reason for your behavior:

From lm  Mon Jun 15 08:12:51 1998 
Return-Path: <lm@dnai.com> 
Received: from dnai.com (lm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) 
        by bitmover.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA03585; 
        Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:12:48 -0700 
Message-Id: <199806151512.IAA03585@bitmover.com> 
To: charath <charath@siptech.co.in> 
From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) 
cc: bitkeeper-users@bitmover.com 
Subject: Re: Problem with BitSCCS on NT4?  
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:12:47 -0700 
Sender: lm@dnai.com 

: I tried to compile BitSCCS on a Windows NT 4.0 machine using the Cygwin32 
: Beta 19 pack (gcc). The package compiled without a hitch. However, 
: when I try to use it I encounter a problem. 

: The system is able to run sccssh and to edit & get existing sccs files 
: (created by a Solaris system). When I create a new file & try to check it 
: in (using the delta -i command), it creates a new SCCS directory and a 
: new s. file. However, when I try to edit this file (using edit or get), 
: I get a message saying the the checksum on the s file is incorrect and 
: that the s-file is missing! 

Yeah, I ran into this with my original NT port which has since become out 
of date.  If I remember correctly, the problem was an fseek() interfaction. 
I think that I talked to a file both through the file descriptor and  
through the FILE * at one point.  This confused Cygwin32.  If this is the 
same problem, you'll see

Now check the name of the mailing list....it is: bitkeeper-users.

Given the fact that you did not act as a collaborative person and did not write down a reason for your actions, you appear as a person that mainly intends to do vandalism. Schily (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing categories only actually is vandalism. Do a proper edit, collect, link and cite evidence, write up a paragraph on that, then edit the categories. Unless you do that, your edits can't be considered constructive and look like an unreasonable vandalism. Andrew Shadura (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an incorrect edit. Your non-constructive edits are different, in special as you did not even explain a background that could help to understand whether there might be a valid reason for what you did. Schily (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also [2]:

Thu May 4 2000: the first public release of BitKeeper has been made available. Go to the here get it. Downloading BitKeeper will automatically add you to the bitkeeper-users mailing list; it is a majordomo managed list for discussing bitkeeper. If the list is too busy, or you do not want to be on the list, each mail message from the list includes instructions on how to remove yourself from the list; if these instructions are not clear, send mail to owner-bitkeeper-users@bitmover.com and we'll do it for you.

So clearly it's a 2000 software, not 1998 software. Andrew Shadura (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self published claims are not accepted by WP. Schily (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a self-published claim, it's a fact: BitKeeper was released on 4th of May 2000, not before. That's also confirmed by LWN and other sources. Andrew Shadura (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were a self-published claim, which itself is doubtful, self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid. Andrew Shadura (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly BitKeeper wasn't public until 2000: [3]. Andrew Shadura (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I verified the existence of a bitkeeper mailing list and published source code from 1998. This is definitely a more reliable verification as a statement "first release in 2000" that is worth less than mails and code from 1998. Schily (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't brought here any proof of an existence of a public release of BitKeeper (not a beta, not a pre-release) before 2000. On the contrary, the link above proves BitKeeper wasn't anything more than a closed beta for a limited number of participants before 2000. Andrew Shadura (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fleabag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Scott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"BiglyBT" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BiglyBT. Since you had some involvement with the BiglyBT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. The Banner talk 21:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove deletion discussion notices from pages which are currently being discussed. I don't know what your purpose in doing so was, but if you imagined that doing so would somehow cause the discussion to stop, you were mistaken: the only effect would be that fewer people might be aware of the discussion, meaning that fewer people might take part. Also, editing with the intention of disrupting Wikipedia processes such as discussions is likely to lead to being blocked, whether the attempt is successful or not. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the purpose of this comment now, more than two weeks after these events, with all of my changes having been reverted and pages protected? Andrej Shadura (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To explain to you why it was a mistake, in case you hadn't realised, and so might make the same mistake again another time. If in fact you had already realised, that's fine, of course. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 13:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully realise that I’ve made mistakes which made it very difficult to argue for my point. I should have acted differently, but instead became angry at the reverts calling my legitimate edits spam; but, obviously, rage never helps. Andrej Shadura (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Withers

"Bill Withers, the acclaimed 1970s soul singer behind hits Ain't No Sunshine and Lean On Me has died from heart complications aged 81, his family said. The singer died on Monday in Los Angeles, the family told the Associated Press." Monday = March 30. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you’re right, thanks for the source. And sorry for accidentally reverting your changes. Andrej Shadura (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:BiglyBT and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:BiglyBT, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

1292simon (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1292simon. Could you please point out exactly where are the tone issues? I paid attention to specifically use neutral tone as much as possible. Regarding in-depth, I’m not sure how much of in-depth can be written about a BitTorrent client. For the record, I don’t have any conflict of interest. Andrej Shadura (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. In the rejection notice, you suggest adding the information from this article to the existing article on Vuze, but I’m not sure what would be the best way to proceed with that. It was my original intention to do that, but I unfortunately I had a clash with another editor who perceived it as part of continuing spam effort, and while I did not behave quite correctly in that situation, I’m honestly afraid of touching that article again. Another thing, the URL of the project is currently erroneously in the spam blacklist, so I cannot insert it into an infobox to add it to either of these articles. Andrej Shadura (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Ashling Murphy

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the usual way how to discuss changes / reverts in an article, if not, please let me know how to do it properly. Your edit changed the reference to the country Jozef Puska is coming from to his alleged nationality. I would like to know why you assume his nationality is Slovak? Did you talk to him? In Slovakia are living also other nationalities, ca. 17% of the total population. I propose to revert the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombia (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nationality is country of citizenship, and he's known to have Slovak citizenship, but I agree we know nothing of his ethnicity. I have changed the link to point to the country and not the ethnic group. Andrej Shadura (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]