Razgovor s korisnikom:Dcirovic

Izvor: Wikipedija
(Preusmjereno sa stranice Razgovor s korisnikom:ProtLink)
Prijeđi na navigaciju Prijeđi na pretragu

Doslednost

Dobar dan

Molim Vas da glavni naslov odrednice "Mjerna nesigurnost" vratite na "Merna nesigurnost". Ceo tekst odrenice je ekavica, pa radi doslednosti treba takav da bude i glavni naslov. Unapred hvala.

--Goran M. Kostić (razgovor) 09:47, 12 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

Rusi, Mađari, etc.

Oprosti, ali što radiš s ovim imenima? Nismo ni Rusi ni Mađari pa da pišemo imena kao i oni? :/ --Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 00:40, 23 jun-липањ 2015 (CEST)

Da, očito je došlo do nesporazuma ili dovođenja situacije do apsurda. Naravno da ne koristimo strana pravila nomenklature (Mađarska, Japan, Rusija, ...), međutim pišemo imena kako se pišu tamo. Dakle, neće ići Leh Valensa nego Lech Wałęsa, ali ostaje činjenica da će Lajos Kossuth i Fjodor Dostojevski i Hidetoshi Nakata... biti pisani tako :) --Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 00:54, 23 jun-липањ 2015 (CEST)
Naravno da se poštuje pravopisna i leksička struktura srpskohrvatskog jezika. Kod nas se ne piše prvo prezime pa ime i to se poštuje jer je takav pravopis našega jezika. S druge strane, specifična slova i akcenti na pojedinim slovima nisu stvar pravopisa, već širine abecede. Ovo što si ti izveo je dovođenje situacije do apsurda i potpuno izokretanje pravila koje je usvojeno (onda isto tako uredno možemo pisati nazive članaka na hebrejskom, japanskom, hindiju i ostalim jezicima koji nemaju ista pisma, a da bi tako apsurdno tumečenje pravila imalo smisla). Mislim, lijep pokušaj, ali djeluje mi promašeno. No, da ne bi bilo previše rasprave sada ovdje jer bi ovo moglo otići u neželjenom smjeru - kao i svatko dosad, slobodan si pokrenuti raspravu po ovom pitanju da se postigne konsenzus (naravno, s obzirom na uspjeh ranijih, trebat će ti dosta sreće u postizanju tog konsenzusa), a dotad bi bilo uputno da se primjenjuje nepisana praksa koju poštuju, koliko me memorija služi, svi --Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 01:13, 23 jun-липањ 2015 (CEST)

"Pravila" i drugo

Želim nešto razjasniti ne samo za ovu ovu "svađu" nego i cjelokupnu situaciju zadnjih par mjeseci. Svaki put kad se priča o tebi i tvojim doprinosima ovdje, bilo da je riječ o engleskim biografijama, italijanskim naseljima, šablonima, kategorijama ili nečem drugom, uvijek se sve svodi na greške, greške i greške. Opaske tako dolaze od mene, Edgara, Viteka, itd. Po tome nažalost ispada da si loš i nekonstruktivan, da samo radiš negativne stvari, da bi brojni ovdje željeli da te najradije nema. Meni je to već postalo iritantno i zato ti ovo sve pišem da budemo načisto – ti istina radiš na stotine i stotine grešaka, ali u odnosu na stotine hiljada doprinosa to je jedno veliko ništa. Greške ti se broje u promilima, kao i kod recimo Rippera, Edgara, itd. Činjenično stanje jest takvo da si se i ove i prošle godine pokazao kao daleko najbolji korisnik projekta, bilo po produktivnosti, kvaliteti članaka i tehničkoj potkovanosti. Stoga, molim te nemoj ni u ludilu misliti da će se takav moj stav promijeniti ako redovno prigovaram ili ispravljam nekih 0,0...1% grešaka koje radiš. :) Ako si slučajno moje prigovore protumačio drugačije, otvoreno se izvinjavam zbog nesporazuma.

Što se tiče Pristlija kao specifičnog slučaja, mogao si primjetiti da smo i ja, Ripper i Edgar redovno prebacivali fonetizirana imena na izvornike, sve po pravilima koja su doduše interna. Međutim, ta pravila vrijede samo za naslove i kategorije, unutarni sadržaj se ne dira i stvar je subjektivnog izbora. Kod nelatiničnih slučajeva složili smo se da se favorizira fonetizacija, tako da bi bilo bolje da su npr. jemenska naselja koja si nedavno nanizao u takvom obliku. Opet, nije riječ o grešci jer ne može se od korisnika tražiti da nauči arapski i prevodi, tu vrijedi "bolje išta nego ništa". Ne znam jesi li vidio ali Bokica je jednom predložio da čitav projekt fonetizira jer bi tako bilo lakše implementirati ono preslovljavanje na ćirilicu. Ipak, to opet mora proći glasovanje i lavovski posao prebacivanja desetina hiljada članaka, ali nije ako je to cijena za dvoazbučnost moj će glas definitivno biti "za". Toliko za ovaj put, živio! --Orijentolog (razgovor) 10:51, 23 jun-липањ 2015 (CEST)

Izmjena naslova

Pozdrav Dcirovicu,

pošto ti imaš alate, molim te, bi li mi mogao promijeniti naslov članka "La Orana Maria" u "Ia Orana Maria"? Učinio sam tipkarsku grešku. Hvala.--Wolmar (razgovor) 01:10, 28 jun-липањ 2015 (CEST)

Wikidata weekly summary #164

Wikidata weekly summary #165

Portico

Kao prvo poštovani kolega želim Vam čestitati - što ste ovu wiki doveli na prvo mjesto ex yu wikija sa preko 425 000 članaka. Ali ima jedan mali problem, vaš bot radi i katastrofalne greške, - pogledajte ih i sami kod članka portico, koji je tako iskreiran. Kao prvo izbio je ispravan link sa en wiki portico na naš postojeći članak portik - umjesto na stranicu Portico (disambiguation). Kao drugo ne radi se o naseljima, već o kvartovima (frazione) slijedećih naselja (odnosno općina);

Hajde de ovo se može širokogrudno protumačiti, da su i to naselja (zaseoci) - tih mjesta, ali ih je onda trebalo bar navesti. Te kvartove nemaju ni Talijani, ali kad ih već imamo - još da je sve točno - bog i šeširdžija.

--Vitek (razgovor) 01:29, 8 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

PS Ovo sama zaboravio dodati - u načelu se i ja slažem sa kolegom Orijetologom, - Vaš doprinos je neusporedivo značajniji od svih grešaka koje proizvodite.

--Vitek (razgovor) 01:37, 8 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

Wikidata weekly summary #166

Wikidata weekly summary #167

Brisanje

[1] Obrisi ovo za potrebe tehnickih promena na pojektu. --Kolega2357 (razgovor) 23:40, 23 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

Hoces li prestati da se pravis Englez? Zasto to ne uradis kada ti lepo kazem? --Kolega2357 (razgovor) 23:52, 23 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

Gomilanje prava

Dcirovicu tvoje ignorisanje je premasilo svaku meru nije mi jasno zasto bespotrebno gomilas prava? [2] Na ovom nalogu ti je dovoljna samo bot zastavica. --Kolega2357 (razgovor) 14:04, 24 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

Po cemu sam ja to drzak, napadan i bezobrazan? Jel zato sto ti zdravorazumski nesta kazem? Nemoj da prebacujes svoje osobine drugom molim te. Da gomilas prava gomilas ih. Ako je neki nalog bot nalog onda treba da ima bot zastavicu i to je to a ne vidim razlog zasto treba da ima autopatoler i flood flag zastavicu kada u pravima za bota ima i jedno i drugo. Shvati ovo kao najbolju nameru. --Kolega2357 (razgovor) 14:09, 24 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

Komunikacija

Gospodo, molit ću lijepo, komunikacija na ovakvoj razini ne samo da nije primjerena jednom administratoru već nije primjerena ni bilo kakvom civiliziranom diskursu među obrazovanim ljudima. Kolegino pitanje možda, naglašavam to možda, nije bilo na mjestu jer on nije tu da to preispituje, međutim tvoje optuživanje i bezobrazne replike su jednako neumjesne u ovoj situaciji. Molit ću lijepo da situacija dalje ne eskalira i da se ovakvi ispadi, ravni kafanskih rasprava, neće ponoviti. Hvala --Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 17:32, 24 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

Razgovor

Prema pravilima ove Wikipedije, osim ako se radi o arhiviranju ili doista uvredljivom sadržaju ili onom koji otkriva neželjene podatke, uklanjanje sadržaja sa stranice za razgovor nije dozvoljeno --Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 17:38, 24 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

Da, ali ovdje je praksa takva da se sadržaj uklanja samo u slučaju uvreda, otkrivanja osobnih podataka ili arhiviranja. Takvo je pravilo i praksa da se ne bi moralo kopati po stranicama za razgovor, odnosnoa izmjenama da se pronađe konkretni tekst --Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 17:58, 24 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)
Ne znam je li pod 'vi' misliš na mene, ili pak na cijelu ovu zajednicu koja se dosljedno pridržava tog pravila... To nije izmišljeno pravilo, već ono postoji i ono se primjenjuje. Interesantno kako je ono kod nekih sporno samo kad ih se upozori, a kad im se nešto drugo piše, onda nitko nije sklon mijenjanju --Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 18:09, 24 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)
Ajde neka sam i ja agresivan. Svakako, pojedine Wikipedije mogu imati svoju verziju pravila pa je tako slučaj i ovdje. Mislim da je Igor jednom na Pijaci potvrdio da je pronašao da to stoji kao pravilo (ne mogu sada naći, istina, ali ako uspiješ pronaći suprotno od toga, ja ću se povući iz ove diskusije), a svakako postoji kao praksa tako da, ništa ja nisam ni izmislio, ni opravdavao --Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 18:27, 24 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)
Ubacujem se ovde i zbog toga se izvinjavam, ali je vazno. Kolega Edgare, ne postoji kao praksa kod nas, to je iluzija. --Biblbroks (razgovor) 18:30, 24 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)
Ja znam da se svako brisanje takvog sadržaja dosad revertalo, a to je definicija prakse --Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 18:32, 24 jul-српањ 2015 (CEST)

Wikidata weekly summary #168

Wikidata weekly summary #169

Missing interwiki links for your bot-generated articles

Hello. Thank you a lot for your contribution in wikipedia !
You have created by bot a lot of articles about settlements. But huge amount of them already has item in wikidata and yours were not linked. For example:

Could you please investigate and link all your created articles with existing wikidata items ? --Movses (razgovor) 10:01, 7 avgust-коловоз 2015 (CEST)

Wikidata weekly summary #170

Wikidata weekly summary #171

Wikidata weekly summary #172

Wikidata weekly summary #173

Wikidata weekly summary #174

Wikidata weekly summary #175

Wikidata weekly summary #176

Wikidata weekly summary #177

Wikidata weekly summary #178

Wikidata weekly summary #179

Wikidata weekly summary #180

Wikidata weekly summary #181

Wikidata weekly summary #182

Wikidata weekly summary #183

Wikidata weekly summary #184

Wikidata weekly summary #185

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Wikidata weekly summary #187

Wikidata weekly summary #188

Wikidata weekly summary #189

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Wikidata weekly summary #190

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Wikidata weekly summary #191

Wikidata weekly summary #192

Wikidata weekly summary #193

Wikidata weekly summary #194

Wikidata weekly summary #195

Wikidata weekly summary #196

Wikidata weekly summary #196

Wikidata weekly summary #197

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Wikidata weekly summary #198

Wikidata weekly summary #199

Wikidata weekly summary #200

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Wikidata weekly summary #201

Wikidata weekly summary #202

Wikidata weekly summary #203

Wikidata weekly summary #204

Wikidata weekly summary #205

Wikidata weekly summary #206

Wikidata weekly summary #207

Wikidata weekly summary #208

Wikidata weekly summary #209

Wikidata weekly summary #210

Wikidata weekly summary #211

Wikidata weekly summary #212

Wikidata weekly summary #213

Wikidata weekly summary #214

Wikidata weekly summary #215

Wikidata weekly summary #216

Wikidata weekly summary #217

Wikidata weekly summary #218

Wikidata weekly summary #219

Wikidata weekly summary #220

Wikidata weekly summary #221

Wikidata weekly summary #222

Wikidata weekly summary #223

Wikidata weekly summary #224

Wikidata weekly summary #225

Wikidata weekly summary #226

Wikidata weekly summary #227

Wikidata weekly summary #228

Wikidata weekly summary #229

Wikidata weekly summary #230

Wikidata weekly summary #231

Wikidata weekly summary #232

Wikidata weekly summary #233

Wikidata weekly summary #234

Wikidata weekly summary #235

Wikidata weekly summary #236

Wikidata weekly summary #237

Wikidata weekly summary #238

Wikidata weekly summary #239

Wikidata weekly summary #240

Wikidata weekly summary #241

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Wikidata weekly summary #243

Jezik interfejsa

FYI: [7]. --Nemo bis (razgovor) 20:58, 17 januar 2017 (CET)[odgovori]

Wikidata weekly summary #244

Wikidata weekly summary #245

Wikidata weekly summary #246

Wikidata weekly summary #247

Reverts

Hi, please stop reverting. Those redirects are factually wrong. --Te750iv (razgovor) 20:58, 1 decembar 2018 (CET)[odgovori]

@Te750iv: If they are wrong they should be corrected. Replicating disambiguation pages is meaningless. --Dcirovic (razgovor) 21:01, 1 decembar 2018 (CET)[odgovori]
Thanks for the reply. As already explained on the pages you reverted:
Redirects like Хале (Niedersachsen) to Halle (Weserbergland) are misleading because 2 different municipalities named "Halle" exist in Lower Saxony (= Donja Saksonija = Niedersachsen/NI):
  1. Halle (bei Neuenhaus) (d:Q624830)– no article on sh.wikipedia yet, but in many other languages
  2. Halle (Weserbergland) (d:Q649782)
An exclusive redirect to the second one makes no sense. I don't see how such a redirect "should be corrected". It would be wrong in the same way to change the redirect to "Halle (bei Neuenhaus)" instead. And of course replicating disambiguation pages (see Halle) is meaningless.
Do you have a suggestion? --Te750iv (razgovor) 21:12, 1 decembar 2018 (CET)[odgovori]
@Te750iv: In such cases redirect should point to the corresponding disambiguation page. --Dcirovic (razgovor) 21:22, 1 decembar 2018 (CET)[odgovori]

deletion request: fantasy location redirects

Hi again, I noticed that you removed deletion requests and kept the following 30 pages as redirects to the disambiguation Halle (example here):

  1. Halle, bei Neuenhaus, Saksonija-Anhalt
  2. Hale, bei Neuenhaus, Saksonija-Anhalt
  3. Хале, bei Neuenhaus, Saksonija-Anhalt
  4. Halle (bei Neuenhaus, Saksonija-Anhalt)
  5. Hale (bei Neuenhaus, Saksonija-Anhalt)
  6. Хале (bei Neuenhaus, Saksonija-Anhalt)
  7. Halle, bei Neuenhaus, Саксонија-Анхалт
  8. Hale, bei Neuenhaus, Саксонија-Анхалт
  9. Хале, bei Neuenhaus, Саксонија-Анхалт
  10. Halle (bei Neuenhaus, Саксонија-Анхалт)
  11. Hale (bei Neuenhaus, Саксонија-Анхалт)
  12. Хале (bei Neuenhaus, Саксонија-Анхалт)
  13. Halle, bei Neuenhaus, Sachsen-Anhalt
  14. Hale, bei Neuenhaus, Sachsen-Anhalt
  15. Хале, bei Neuenhaus, Sachsen-Anhalt
  16. Halle (bei Neuenhaus, Sachsen-Anhalt)
  17. Hale (bei Neuenhaus, Sachsen-Anhalt)
  18. Хале (bei Neuenhaus, Sachsen-Anhalt)
  19. Halle, bei Neuenhaus, ST
  20. Hale, bei Neuenhaus, ST
  21. Хале, bei Neuenhaus, ST
  22. Halle (bei Neuenhaus, ST)
  23. Hale (bei Neuenhaus, ST)
  24. Хале (bei Neuenhaus, ST)
  25. Halle, bei Neuenhaus, ST, Nemačka
  26. Hale, bei Neuenhaus, ST, Nemačka
  27. Хале, bei Neuenhaus, ST, Nemačka
  28. Halle (bei Neuenhaus, ST, Deutschland)
  29. Hale (bei Neuenhaus, ST, Deutschland)
  30. Хале (bei Neuenhaus, ST, Deutschland)

Please note that this is different to the case above (which was about 2 towns named Halle, but both located in the same state, Lower Saxony).

As already explained in the deletion requests (see [8]), the problem here is, that the redirects combine 2 completely unrelated locations in their titles. They include Neuenhaus in Saxony-Anhalt in various forms. Therefore, they suggest that such a location would be real. But it is not. A municipality named Neuenhaus does not exist at all in Saxony-Anhalt.

What happened? Obviously the following two municipalities have been mixed up once in the past:

So the creation of 30 misleading and implausible redirects (originally to one of the "Halle" articles) was a mistake. No problem, it's easy to correct mistakes on Wikipedia. In this case, correction can only mean deletion, because it really makes no sense to manifest wrong information by keeping false redirects forever.

Otherwise – if you want to follow this scheme – you would have to create hundreds of redirects from fantasy location combinations to the disambiguation Halle:

  • There are more states of Germany without a municipality named Neuenhaus, e.g. Bavaria. So Halle, bei Neuenhaus, Bavarska or the variant Хале, bei Neuenhaus, BY, Nemačka would be as good (or bad) as the 30 redirects above.
  • The administrative structure of Germany with many similar names might be confusing, I know. So maybe the UK capital London is a better example:
    A standard redirect from London, England, United Kingdom would be ok (at least on sh.wikipedia), because London is actually located in the English part of the UK.
    But redirects from London, Scotland, UK or London, Wales, UK would NOT be ok (factually wrong, as London is neither located in Scotland nor in Wales, even if both are parts of the UK). Such redirects are generally unwanted (probably on sh.wikipedia, too).

I hope, I was able to explain the issue and you see the point now. Could you please reconsider deletion of the 30 redirects? Thanks --Te750iv (razgovor) 20:16, 6 januar 2019 (CET)[odgovori]

Germansko pravo

Trebalo bi da se ovaj clanak poveze sa Early germanic law a ne German law i ako možete da mi kažete kako da dodam članak i u srpsku vikipediju. Popovicmirjana (razgovor) 15:49, 19 decembar 2019 (CET)[odgovori]

Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool

Hello Friend,

Apologies as this message is not in your native language.

The WMF language team is reaching out to you based on your position as an admin in the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. In particular, we want to learn about your experience, the issues you encounter with articles created with Content translation.

We appreciate the great work you are doing in Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia to ensure standard and quality articles are not compromised. However, it is a big task to encounter content that is not standard daily, and a difficult decision to delete them because they fall below standard.

Our observations

We noticed that articles created with the Content Translation tool in your wiki are deleted more frequently than in other Wikipedias. We say this because, from our statistics, 8185 articles were added to Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia in 2020. Out of the above figure, only 7 of them were translated using the Content Translation tool and 14 articles were deleted. Therefore, the deletion rate and the tool's low usage signals a problem or deficiencies peculiar to your Wikipedia. The Content Translation tool can increase content creation in your Wikipedia and is an excellent way to efficiently introduce newcomers to adding content and expand on existing ones.

Our request

So, we want you to participate in a survey. The survey will give us insight into how we can improve the tool to get quality articles and reduce the number of deletion, hence making your work easier.

Please follow this link to the Survey:

Take the Survey
To know how the information collected from the survey will be used, please read the Privacy Statement.

If you are not comfortable with taking the survey, that is fine. You can still provide us with feedback in this thread or via email on the following questions:

  • What makes the articles created with content translation fall below standard in your Wikipedia?
  • What are the common mistakes that editors that use content translation make?
  • How do you think we can improve the  Content Translation tool that will help you with your work or make your task easier and reduce deletion of articles in Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia?

So please, feel free to give us feedback in any way that is most convenient for you.

Thank you so much, as we look forward to your response

UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 21 juni 2021 (CEST) On behalf of the WMF Language team.[odgovori]

Reminder: Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool

Hello Friend!

The WMF Language team earlier reached out to you to participate in a survey to give us insight into improving the Content Translation tool to make your work as an admin easier. Towards improving the quality of content in your Wikipedia and avoiding the case of content deletion.

Again, we are reaching out to you as a reminder to Take the Survey as the survey will close on 9th July 2021 (23:59 UTC). The survey will only take you between 10 to 15 minutes. Please read the Privacy Statement to know how the information collected from the survey will be used.

If you already took the survey- thank you! You don't need to retake it.

Thank you, as we look forward to your response.

UOzurumba (WMF) 21:17, 6 juli 2021 (CEST) On behalf of the WMF Language team.[odgovori]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

19:19, 4 januar 2022 (CET)

Invitation to Rejoin the Healthcare Translation Task Force

You have been a medical translators within Wikipedia. We have recently relaunched our efforts and invite you to join the new process. Let me know if you have questions. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)