User talk:Rarelibra/Archive1

... for fixing the typo in my user page --Oblivious 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have another mapmaker on board :) I've been trying to find a good map of the Bahamas to work from, looks like you beat me to it. :) --Golbez 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we did started bad, but it will be better I hoppe. We do have same interest for cartography, so we maybe can cooperate about some maps on Wikipedia. You can also add your name here if you want:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Cartographers

As for sending email via Wikipedia, I do not know how to do this, can you explain to me how to send it? One more thing, seems that the problem with Vojvodina article is that the history section lack the explanation for this changes of the autonomy level from 1945 to the present day. I will improve this history section when I find time to do it. Since you are interested in this issue, then here is the main difference in the autonomy levels during the time: In 1945 Vojvodina and Kosovo were formed as a territorial autonomies within Serbia. In 1974, the autonomy level of both provinces was increased in the manner that they still were autonomous provinces of Serbia, but they also were represented in the federal institutions independently from Serbia (In another words, the provinces had almost same level of power as the Serbia itself). In 1989, this level of autonomy was abolished, so the provinces were no longer represented in the federal institutions, but were only autonomous provinces within Serbia (as they were before 1974 too), with a small level of autonomy. The Kosovo Albanians did not agreed to have only this small autonomy, so they boycotted the institutions and started a rebellion in 1998, which led to NATO bombing in 1999. The UN administration increased the level of the autonomy of Kosovo in 1999, while the level of autonomy of Vojvodina was also increased by the omnibus law in 2002. Currently, both provinces have larger autonomy than in 1989, but smaller than in 1974. In this year the final status of Kosovo will be determined, and it will be either independence either Kosovo will become a third republic within Serbia-Montenegro. As for Vojvodina, it also will gain more autonomy by the new constitution of Serbia. Serbia possibly will also have 4 new provinces. See this: Regions of Serbia. The ethnic Hungarian politicians from the northern part of Vojvodina also want a separate autonomous region for themselves (Hungarian Regional Autonomy), as well as the ethic Bosniak politicians from Sandžak, but it is not likely that these two regions will be formed, since the new provinces of Serbia will be formed on economic, not on the ethnic principle. PANONIAN (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I am hastily leaving you a message simply to thank you for contributing a map of Jersey parishes — it is good work, I have to say. Lacking the appropriate software, I gave up attempting one long ago.

Thank you once again,

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 13:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, fellow Libra! I believe it would be better to number the regions instead of writing their names, so that it would be legible from the main article, instead of enlarging the picture to be able to see the names. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the necessary knowledge of graphic design (in short, I suck at it), so i'm kindly asking you to do it!

Thanks! edolen1 15:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, I would prefer you to put in the reference numbers, but purely because of aesthetics. The huge map really looks out of place. Thanks for your contributions, though! edolen1 16:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I never meant to hurt your feelings. It's just that I wanted to edit your map and number the regions instead of naming them, as the names are quite long and I thought it was more practical to use numbers. But unfortunately like I mentioned before, my skills are all but limited when it comes to image editing. That's why, when I found the map from the Statistical Office, I added it because it fit my criteria, so to speak. I did check the copyright, and I did add the note on the source as the copyright notice demanded. I did however mislabel it as having an unknown license but I've fixed it since then. I do hope you understand that this wasn't an act against you but something which I thought might better represent the regions and aid the reader better. Again, my sincerest apologies as I did not mean to hurt your feelings. edolen1 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! :) edolen1 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have no intention of engaging in an edit war, but why do you insist on inflating maps to such a size that they squeeze the lists and tables? It's really not necessary - your maps are nice enough map that everyone can admire them even at a reasonable size. Man vyi 13:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I noticed that you have uploaded a county of showing municipalities of Sogn og Fjordane county. Would you be interested in designing similar maps for the traditional districts (landsdeler) as well? They are more or less clusters of modern municipalities that group themselves together both for reasons practical administration and a historical sense of common regional identity based on dialect and folklore. =J //Big Adamsky 15:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Also, I would like to suggest that you follow cartographic conventions by not placing names over borders or coastlines. If the area is too small for the word to fit, then the best option (in my opinion) is to use numbers and a footnote/legend or else to just abbreviate the toponym in question. Thanks again. //Big Adamsky 15:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ølen merged with Vindafjord on January 1, 2006, decided by a referendum of February 17, 2003. -- Egil 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update! Rarelibra

Also, Ølen opted to become part of Rogaland county in stead of Hordaland a few years prior to the merger. Municipal mergers have also ocurred in Nordland county. //Big Adamsky 09:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the map to Vest-Agder. Really helps understand the geography! Williamborg 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I see Big Adamsky asked if you'd consider designing maps for the traditional districts (landsdeler). He's not alone in thinking this would be a good contribution, if you have the time. Williamborg 01:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I just tried to use your map in Aust-Agder and found several errors. Compare your version with that in Veiatlas Norge or at German map of Aust-Agder & you will see the differences. Hope you can update. Thanks Williamborg 04:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the map you asked for (I just draw it):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Montenegro_municipalities.png

PANONIAN (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi, i'm id-wiki user. I know very little about ArcView. How to make a good and artistic map, is there any template for making map in wiki? Which software should I use? (I'm Windows XP user). FYI, these map I've made are very bad, huh? Look at this: locator and county-division. Please reply to my id-wiki discussion page. Wic2020 04:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say your maps are bad at all. ArcView is a software that is very easy to learn and very creative to use in editing/creating maps (using the old "shape file" format from ESRI). I like the 2nd map a lot, actually - although I cannot read the language (is it Malaysian?). I will compile a list for you of sources that are good references for how to create/edit maps. Rarelibra 8MAR06

Thanks a lot ;) The language is Indonesian (it's mutually intelligible with Malaysian). The second map shows one of local administrative region of regency in Indonesia. I want to make other regency map, either locator map or admin-division map in Indonesia, especially in Java (island). Feel free sending me map templates & resources for wiki (by email). Wic2020 06:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:US_Virgin_Islands_admin_divisions.png is very nice. Thanks! --Gruepig 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, 12 new municipalities have been established recently and 5 still need to be approved in the National Assembly, so currently there are no accurate maps I can give you. We're going to have to wait for the local elections this fall for some detailed maps of the municipalities to be released.

There's already a map for the (until recently) 193 municipalities though. edolen1 18:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. We seem to be on different pages about whether the English name for Cameroon's départements is divisions or departments. I've changed things back to what I'm fairly certain is the proper nomenclature, but if you decide to revert again, I won't edit war with you. Once I get home, I'll consult my Cameroon library to see how my atlases, histories, etc. handle the issue. I know that, as Fotang stated at Talk:Cameroon, most Anglophone Cameroonians (in my personal experience) refer to these units as divisions rather than departments. — BrianSmithson 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - in the midst of my changes and your reverts, I consulted the official Cameroon government page (http://www.spm.gov.cm/showdoc.php?id_docs=21&lang=en&tpl=1) and found the 'official' breakdown (my source must be from the 'old' makeup). While the UN views them as "departments" (hence the French nomenclature), I appreciate the input... and will follow suit with a breakdown series of maps of the 'divisions'. :) Rarelibra 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving discussion back here to avoid fragmentation) I'm beginning to think that I acted too hastily and that "department" is the proper nomenclature. Like I said, Anglophone Cameroonians tend to say division and refer to prefets and sous-prefets as senior divisional officers and junior divisional officers. It gets kind of confusing. :) But the UN page and official page you cite are both very convincing arguments for departments, as is this link. If we decide to change back to departments, Category:Divisions of Cameroon will need a renaming, as well. — BrianSmithson 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait; just checked the official Cameroonian government page you linked to and realized that you meant that it uses divisions rather than departments. Damn colonialism by three different European powers! — BrianSmithson 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghana District Maps are great. I am not a geographer but I'm using some maps in my doctoral dissertation. I brought them back as paper copies a cartographer at the Ghana Electoral Commission created for me. Then I scanned them at Kinkos into .JPGs. I've managed to turn them into pretty good looking maps which I can somewhat laborously manipulate using Adobe Illustrator but from the sounds of it your maps are far easier to change. Do you have any free advice?

Sure... if you would like me to manipulate/create particular maps for you, I offer up my services to you - free of charge. I need a way to contact you outside of Wiki. I have an email address with Wiki - if you are unable to send me a message, then I will gladly provide mine to you. Rarelibra 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there :) compliments for your many contributions about maps and geography in general! Unfortunately I've found the map of Piedmont you uploaded on Commons is flawed, and doesn't show the correct borders of some provinces - it:Provincia di Vercelli also commprises what you call Province of Biella, Biella itself lies where you put Verbano-Cusio-Ossola, which is more to the right, sharing some border with Lombardy. Since there are so many maps with the same style I thought it would be better just to tell you, and not to upload some corrected version which might look different. ;-) Bye,

137.204.150.44 19:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rare! I'm a map fan collaborating on a project on Africa in the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, and I have to say you make great maps! My I ask (if it's not asking too much?) that you'd make your maps available in SVG format, and upload these to Wikimedia Commons? That way those maps can be put to more flexible use, in more than just the English wiki. I've never used the software you mention, but if it's cartographic software then it should export in several vector formats. If you need any assistance with Commons, or want to talk about it, please use my talk page. Thanks! – Tintazul ^msg 23:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wanting to create the SVG maps! If the shapes end up labelled, say if the shape for a province has id=the province's name, then so much the better! That really helps. If the SVG's turn out very big, I for one would say it's all right - all the info there is useful. About categorizing, there's usually a Maps of XXX category for each country. If you need me, you know where to find me. – Tintazul ^msg 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you adding the maps, here at the English wiki or at the Commons? I can't see anything either.

You should create an account on Wikimedia Commons, to add the images there. As to software to produce SVG from jpeg, well, it is best to use the original sources that you have, or you will introduce a lot of errors in the resulting SVG file. If you have ESRI files or other vector format, your software should be able to easily convert to SVG. -- – Tintazul ^msg 13:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have created some maps of the counties of Norway, and sice you (hopefully) got an easy editable version at your computer, I would be very greatfull if you could have made municipality maps in the same style as there is. see commons:Category:Maps of Nordland for example.

We are lacking maps of these counties,

• Akershus
• Aust-Agder
• Hordaland
• Rogaland
• Sogn og Fjordane
• Telemark

I (and the rest of no:) would be very greatful if you had the chance to help us. the name of the maps have to be nn kart.png due to templates. Røed 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) just contact me if you got any questions. (I will put your page on survilance as well). Røed 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roed - Help me out here. I want to clarify - do you need me to redo the maps I created for Norway, or do you need me to do more maps for the counties you mentioned, at the municipality level? If so, I need assistance in finding a 'base map' or image of such that I can use to trace/digitize the outlines. The sources I have only go down two administrative levels (or up to 5 levels, in cases like France - which has a complex system). ? thanks! 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I basicly want you to use the maps you have of the listed counties, and make one map for each municipality (with that municipality in red, the others in gray). Røed 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say hello. I've noticed that you do maps and have done a little editing here and there to Administrative Divisions. I'm currently trying to universalize all the administrative divisions, in respect to their images and list of counties, provinces, etc. I don't need any specific help from you right now, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to say hello and establish a contact for my current undertaking. b_cubed 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I need your map making expertise. I just streamlined the Administrative divisions a little bit for Peru. The only problem is, is that it is an out of date map. The map that I took out of Subdivisions of Peru does not have listed the region Callao, which has since become a province. I checked out the Callao article and it has an image that you could possibly use to update the one on the peru article. Also, when the Callao region is added to the main map, it will of course need renumbering. thanks b_cubed 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey b_cubed - consider it done. Based on the available maps on Wiki and the Internet, I have already created (in my database) the area, although I would first like to verify its accuracy. Would you or someone you know be able to verify the accuracy of my boundary definitions? Rarelibra 16:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know as if i could verify it's accuracy. Nor do I know anyone that really could. I just happened to notice that the map that was being used was a little outdated. sorry b_cubed 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice map, well done. --Ezeu 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Rarelibra. Por lo que yo entiendo necesitas la cartografía municipal de España ¿verdad? OK. Te contesto como hice a otro compañero de la Wikipedia:

---

Obtener la cartografía municipal de España con la que están hechos los mapas de Wikipedia es sencillo. Para ello tú debes descargarse el siguiente programa que se encuentra en la web del Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) de España de esta página.

Después de instalar el programa vete al directorio de instalación C:\Archivos de programa\PX-Map\Maps (en tu ordenador puede que cambie C:\Program Files\PX-Map\Maps). Allí tú encontrarás todos los shapefiles con los municipios de España que usa el programa, con su código INE, superficie, provincia, nombre, etc. listo para cargar en tu GIS.

---

Espero haberte servido de ayuda.

Reciba un cordial saludo. --Politono 08:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No estoy seguro pero el sistema de proyección creo que es UTM ED50. --Politono 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanna thank you for breaking and organizing its content! Gcoliveira 19:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood my edit. While 'OPFOR' is an abbreviation for 'opposing force', and the terms are very often used with the same meaning, they are not always interchangeable. AFAICT, we are agreed that the term 'OPFOR' is used only for a simulated enemy, not a real one, but this is not the case for 'opposing force'.

Some examples where 'opposing force' is used to refer to a genuine enemy:

PoW Medal criteria (term is also used in the same way in criteria for various other awards) AUSA piece on Aerial Common Sensor 'Combat Models' coursework 'Parameters' magazine article on the Battle of Grozny

This usage is not particularly common (which is why the focus of the article is on simulated enemies, as it should be). However, it does exist - in reputable military publications, at that - and as long as the article's titled 'Opposing force' it should acknowledge that usage.

As for the question of US-centrism: given that simulated enemies are an important part of training to many military powers, it seems to me that it would make sense to have an article that covers the general concept - having a separate article for each nation that does this would lead to a lot of duplication of effort (and I doubt we'd have much luck producing more than a stub for nations other than the US). If 'Opposing force' seems too US-centric a term to fit a general article, it would be better to rename it to something more generic rather than change the scope. --Calair 15:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on your maps of the divisions of Cameroon! You might consider uploading them to Wikimedia Commons as well so that the users of Wikipedias in other languages also have access to them. And they'd also be good additions to the individual province articles (East Province (Cameroon), South Province (Cameroon), etc.). Again, nice work! — BrianSmithson 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BrianSmithson! THANK YOU for the comments on my maps. I finally compiled a list on my map page and found out I have over 100+ maps I've created (Yikes!). I went ahead and got a Commons account and started with loading up the Cameroon maps. Thanks again, and thank you for pointing out the commons to me. Rarelibra 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Just moving the conversation here to avoid fragmentation.) I'm glad to hear that you found my suggestion worthwhile! Commons is a great service, but a lot of people don't know about it. At any rate, keep up the good work! — BrianSmithson 05:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are interested in flags and emblems I would like to inform you that the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology has just been created. Why not take a look? I hope you can join. Inge 21:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I strongly support ussage of Italian name for Bozen-Bolzano article, I am rather neutral in question what is best name for the article about province. I have one idea how to solve this problem: maybe the current South Tyrol article could be split into two - Province of Bolzano/Bozen (describing the province itself) and South Tyrol (describing the usage of this name for the province). And finaly, regarding the name of the Trentino-South Tyrol article, I really do not have idea what is best name for that article. I hope that I was helpfull. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I was suggesting a while back - albeit ignored. I said that the region should have the proper name with an honorable mention for "South Tyrol" for the meaning/association/etc with the region. Rarelibra 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both ideas seem reasonable to me with regard to dual names for cities and a Province and South Tyrol page. Yeah, the Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol is difficult, if anything because it becomes huge with all the translations. :) I would be so content if the other side would give a little -- just a little.. : \ Taalo 02:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have added my comments to Talk:South Tyrol. I knew nothing about these regions previously, so after trying to absorb that discussion my brain is full. I'll come back to the other two in a bit and see whether I have anything useful to say there. Though now I look at it, Bolzano/Bozen seems simple enough. --Calair 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I got to bail from this for a bit. The issue about the Province seems a bit ridiculous to me, given how much information there is backing this up. The idea of having a Province page and South Tyrol page (that Olessi brought up) seems like another good compromise though. The cities, per WP rules, should probably just be Bolzano (Bozen) or just Bolzano. The Trentino-Alto Adige / Trentino-South Tyrol is the tricky one, especially to satisfy everyone. In some ways I lean towards the former, because, well gosh darnit, it is in Britannica, it is on all major maps. If we change to Trentino-South Tyrol, we are definitely going against the conventional grain (which I believe is not the point of WP). Regardless, it seems people are fully intent on doing just that. I definitely see the point of having the Sudtirol/South Tyrol part captured. But given the argument of a few sentences ago, if no one wants to compromise, I don't see how we can just change the name like this. It is not the mission of WP to generate new standards. You know, wouldn't it be nice if the other camp would also reflect a bit? hrm.. anyway, it sure has been an interesting process. A bit surreal, but nonetheless interesting. :-) Taalo 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a lot of information which lends credit to both sides, I think. Please read everything new I have dug up. We still really need to use the Italian-German, Italian (German) or just Italian (least desirable to me to use) names of the city... because well, convention dictates this. Same goes with the province, the real province name is Province of Bolzano-Bozen (BZ). I like Olessi's idea to have a seperate South Tyrol subpage or subsection, and have endorses this. For Trentino-Alto Adige or Trentino-South Tyrol, since we have found the majority of maps, etc. list Trentino-Alto Adige.. this must be taken into account. As this document I found suggests a recent move came up bringing up the name Trentino-South Tyrol officially, that must also be taken into account. My impression is that he is actually talking about how the Italian consitution now lists "Trentino-Alto Adige/Suditirol"... both names. So I think a reasonable compromise would be Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. We make it as English as possible, cover what is used in maps, Britannica, etc.. and also have a neutral situation. So, hopefully I've done ok bringing up this info and even updating the move requests. I really have no problem to be shown wrong on certain things. I had no idea 71,000 Italians emigrated into the region. Though, considering this region is Italy, was Austria, and before the 1800s was literally ruled by everyone (and is actually most founded in Rome).. I still really believe the people of Trento, Bolzano, Verona, etc.. are all, for the most part, cousins, to say the very least. Ok, enough finally. I hope while I try to stay away from this damn new addiction, that the others also take the time to really think hard about what is the best neutral choice. my best regards, and I promise to get around e-mailing you soon. Taalo 06:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you are reverting all the Trentino-South Tyrol mentions to Trentino-Alto Adige, wherever it appears, stating that is the proper name of the Region. I am ethnically and linguistically Italian, of Italian ancestry, I spent in Italy most of my life and I don't have any particular reason to denigrate my country. So I possibly speak from the most impartial point of view about the question. I'm afraid you don't have a clear picture of the ethnic and political circumstances in that area. In fact, the proper name of the Region is not Trentino-Alto Adige: this is just the Italian name of the Region. It is neither the official name, wich is bilingual and is Trentino-Alto Adige/Suedtirol. And the area called Alto Adige in Italian and Suedtirol in German, is just called South Tyrol in English. If you are searching informations about the capital of the United Kingdom on the Italian Wikipedia, you should type "Londra" and not "London". That is Trentino-South Tyrol, without debating. --Fertuno 16:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fertuno - appreciate the input. But there is a difference between the region - which is Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol (as you mentioned), the province - which is Bolzano (not "South Tyrol"), and the 'area' - which can be broken down to the English "South Tyrol". The article on the region should be Trentino-Alto Adige/Suedtirol, the article on the area could be "South Tyrol", the article on the province MUST be "Bolzano". I am not arguing the area of South Tyrol - with its influence in music, etc. But the terminology must be proper - the region is Trentino-Alto Adige/Suedtirol, or if we are going to use English versions, it should be Trentino-Upper Adige/South Tyrol. For some reason this isn't acceptable, and it turns into the abomination of Trentino-South Tyrol (leaving out the "Upper Adige" translation). This is THE heart of the matter, really. Rarelibra 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy jeez, thank goodness! As I was replying to that fellow, I was thinking of the words of Martin Luther King, "Thank God Almighty, we are free at last". Doesn't quite fit the situation, but the feeling certainly does..hah. Now I hope all sides can put down professional arguments, and we can arrive at a neutral and correct solution. Taalo 00:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway, it looks like things are leaning towards using Italian city names in Italy, unless an obvious English name is present, i.e. Bolzano, Trento, Bergamo, Rome, Venice, and Milan. Then when English is used, the translations should be Italian first (home country), etc., etc. For the regions, I guess the same. So now the real major stumbling block is the region name. Actually, I think I'm assuming too much for the province, since still a load of people insist it is the Province of South Tyrol. The bugger who did the English version of the Bolzano provincial website really needs a good tongue-lashing.. LOL. Anyway, my opinion is still that Trentino-Alto Adige is the most used term in English references. But, if the mediator dude thinks otherwise, fine by me. Taalo 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, this is really the usage used in the majority of websites, maps, encyclopedias, etc.

From Brittanica:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-61335

So if we want to be correct, this is it. Just go to Google and type in "italy regions". You get:

http://www.initaly.com/~initaly/regions/regions.htm (uses common English names where applicable)

http://www.travelvantage.com/ita_regions.html (map is all in Italian, but in the discussions it uses common English names again.)

http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Italy/Regions/ (ditto to the first link).

and on, and on, and on. Anyway, so actually the correct way is Bolzano, Province of Bolzano, and Trentino-Alto Adige, if we go by Wiki rules -- not personal opinions. These changes were made all around Wikipedia exactly for the latter reason.

Actually, I don't know what you think, but I don't even think we should reference the Bolzano provincial website, or the Italian gov't website. Main reason being is it is not English speakers who are making these websites. Just by looking at the Bolzano website, there is just confusion all over the place when it gets to an English translation. So, well, whateva. :) Taalo 07:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done with the Brunei mukim maps but I would like to note one error from one of the map. The Belait District there is a typo on the name of the mukim. Instead of Mellas, it is Melilas. Anyway, a very well done job you got there. Gross 07:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gross - thanks for the update. I'll get a new map up there shortly! Rarelibra 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gross - I posted an updated map with the correct spelling of "Melilas" today. Thanks again for your help!Rarelibra 16:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To allow me and future users to better expand on the excellent work on the maps you made, could you please tell me the sources for the boundary data on each map? I would appreciate it. Respond at my talk page. Peter O. (Talk) 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I want you to know that I am a programmer and my programming skills allow me to read shapefiles and process them. Since it seems you have plenty of shapefiles, how would you license them? Peter O. (Talk) 04:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The files I want are ESRI shapefiles. Peter O. (Talk) 06:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted the page as before the 00:45, 11 October 2006 revision, which didn't mention any "Sudtirolo". Anyway "Sudtirolo" makes no grammatical sense in Italian, which is not an agglutinative language like German. If it exists, it's just due mispelling or bad translation. At most in Italian you can say "Tirolo del Sud". --Fertuno 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanco may do business in more than 190 countries, but I would have thought the category would refer to which country or countries they are incorporated in. Do they have subsidiaries in all those places? WLD 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - I hope I didn't come across too stern. And thank-you *very* much for all the contributions you have done with maps - Wikipedia lacks graphics/images, so I think your contributions are very useful and helpful indeed. WLD 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A thought struck me - one of the things I have on my list of things to do when I get around to it was to provide some maps for the articles I've been trying to produce on international cable systems - the maps to show notional 'routes' betweeen the landing points - I wouldn't aim for exact recording of the actual route of the cables on the seabed, more a sensible spline curve between the landing points *in the correct order* with branching points correctly shown. Given your job, it may even be useful! The list of such one that are currently in Wikipedia are here: List of international submarine communications cables. If of interest, and you have the time, that would be great. I won't be offended if you don't want to, it'll just take a little longer for me to get there, that's all. The timeframe I work to is measured in years, if at all (!). Cheers, WLD 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I hope your training goes well, and please don't 'bust a gut' working on the maps. Getting hold of public domain cable data is not easy - this KISCA info here: [1] for UK waters is the best I've seen, closely followed by the France Telecom info [2], but for everywhere else, it is a struggle. The KDDI global overview is not bad [3] and the Telegeography map [4] is $225 a throw(!). I've been trying to source all the info in the articles from press releases and other openly available info, and I've deliberately not used any of the proprietary databases such as [5] and [6]. WLD 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to protecting Italy, and more in general for your work against vandalism.  :) --Nehwyn 20:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was interested if you had the Sud-District names for Somalia? And how do I contact you privately? Would like to email you by way of AKO or leave me a message in mytalk Flesh1966.

Hi, Rarelibra! I spotted you on someone else's talk page, and I see from your userpage that you are interested in maps and are willing to help with those if need be.

I am wondering if you would be able to create a rough overview map of the Russian republic of Adygea. I am currently working on the administrative divisions of Adygea list, which underwent peer review in the past, during which it was determined that a map is something this list cannot lack if it is ever to become featured. JFMorse was so kind as to create great overview locator maps for each district, but he is quite busy now, and creating a decent overall map of Adygea is quite a low priority for him at the moment.

What I need is a map colored the same way as the locator maps, but showing some portions of and borders with surrounding Krasnodar Krai, borders of internal districts, locations of Adygea's two main cities (and possibly of all urban-type settlements), and maybe a few major rivers. No need to be too elaborate, I just need a temporary solution.

Is this something you could do? If not (for any reason), it's no biggie, I'll badger someone else :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no rush. Whenever it's convenient to you. Beside the map, I still need to write a bunch of stubs to paint the red links blue. Thanks for agreeing to help; I much appreciate it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! It looks a little rough, but should work as a temporary solution. I am just wondering if you could fix a couple minor things:

• Could Black Sea be painted light blue or something, so it would be immediately apparent that it's a body of water?
• Could the borders between Gagra/Gudauta/Sokhumi be erased, and could the whole thing be labeled "Georgia" instead? Maybe it would be better to make it light grey or something to show this is another country.
• Could you change "Krasnodar" to "Krasnodar Krai"? The former is the name of the city, the latter—of the federal subject.
• Changing colors of territories of Krasnodar Krai and Karachay-Cherkessia might be helpful, although the map works fine as is.
• Any way administrative centers of the districts could be shown on the map?

If any of these requires too much work to be put in, then it's no big deal if you don't do it. Like I said, I just need a temp solution, not an elaborate map, although, of course, the more information you could fit into it, the better. Thanks again for your willingness to help!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not at all mean to demean your work; it's just that since I asked for a "temporary solution" and you provided a "rough draft", I naturally assumed them equivalents. If you could make a permanent high-quality map, it'll be great! Thanks so much again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again! I know that two days before Thanksgiving is probably not the best time to ask, but I am just curious if you had any progress with this map beyond the previous draft. Sorry for being a pest! :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhiki - yeah, bad timing. I will be able to get a nicer one out to you next week. Hope it isn't too much of a wait. Rarelibra 22:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Like I said before, it's not urgent. I was just making sure you haven't forgotten about it altogether :) Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, panic time :) By the way, I am mighty impressed with the number of requests you are getting and even more with how many you actually fulfill. Anyhoo, back to administrative divisions of Adygea. I am now finished with all the changes I wanted to make to that list. The only thing that prevents me from nominating it on WP:FL right away is, as you probably have already guessed, the absence of the map. If you could finish it any time soon, that'd be just splendid. If not, oh well, I am a quite patient fella, I'll wait. I'm just asking for an ETA, if you don't mind. Thanks again to agreeing to help out! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee! I just hope that your Friday isn't too far off from mine :) As a side benefit, I'll finally be able to archive the talk page of mine. Thanks so much again!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you! If it weren't for you, I don't know where else I would be getting such a map. I'll proceed with WP:FL nomination for the article this map is supposed to illustrate tomorrow.

As for the map, I only have a few minor concerns:

1. is there an easy way to distinguish Adygeysk from Ponezhukay—as they are both marked the same, it's hard to say which one is the administrative center?
2. did you accidentally merge Karachay-Cherkessia (which was present in the test map) with Krasnodar Krai?
3. the image is labelled GFDL and CC-by, but in the comment you say it's for public domain use. Aren't those two licenses incompatible with PD?

Again, thank you thank you thank you! If there is anything I can in turn help with, please let me know.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Adygeysk should stay—it's one of the only two cities in the republic, and its status is roughly equal to that of a district. Thanks for fixing the borders though; having Karachay-Cherkessia is important :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Rarelibra! I hope you like it here. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 15:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at my talk page. Chick Bowen 16:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, I like how Bishonen put a stop to that. It is one of those small things that bring some confidence back in the Wikipedia process. Anyhow, hopefully now people will relax. Yes, this time..hah. Anyway, can't understand what Emes is on about with the legal office and no Italians in that area. The people in the province (Bolzano) are all of Roman, Germanic, etc. origin. It has been a majority German-speaking for some centuries, but we are English speaking also for some centuries in the US. Doesn't mean we are all 100% English. LOL. Ok, so one question I had meant to ask you for awhile. Since you know maps well, is there a way to pull up the maps of (for example, Italy) over the centuries? For me it would be interesting from a historical perspective to see how the country was subdivided over the centuries. It was only in recent times that the "Italians" re-assembled their own republic. regards. Taalo 19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I liked my post about the legal inquiry. :-) I was seriously just trying to joke around with Martin, but maybe you are right. I guess he probably would just wikistress himself up one more level. :)) Anyway, that legal office thing was one of the more funny topics brought up so far. Taalo 21:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, but let it lie. I don't want to see a "wikistress nuclear" with a mushroom cloud on his userpage. He is on the opposite side where we are. With proper discussion, we can all agree on a neutral naming solution. Rarelibra 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he already has the mushroom cloud! LOL I never saw that before, though I noticed when he had it one level lower it was already pretty scary looking..hah. But when I saw the new mushroom cloud I was really like: O_O "okayyyyyyy" :-) Taalo 23:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Rarelibra, I saw that you reverted my contribution about Italian Geography. Geographically, Corsica - together with Sardinia - delimites the Tyrrhenian sea, and - always in the geographical sense - it belongs to the Italian region. So, I think that my correction was right. Why don't you agree with it? Thanks, alex2006 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see on your own talk page, it's because Corsica belongs to France, not Italy. That article is about the geography of Italy, not the "Tyrrhenian sea" or the 'delimitation' of the geographic sense of the region (which, by the way, isn't necessarily just Italian). Rarelibra 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point. The fact is that up to 1860 Italy was - according to most of people (among them Metternich) - only a geographycal expression. And in this geographycal expression are contained also the three big islands. It is also correct that part of the italian region are territories (Corsica, Istria, Malta, Ticino) which does not belong to the italian republic. But if in the article you refer exclusively to the Italian Republic you are right.

Thanks and ciao, alex2006 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Alex - too many times people on Wiki try to quote quasi-historical reference to justify a naming convention (just see the mess going on with South Tyrol on the talk page). Does it really matter what Italy was referred to back in 1860? The country exists today as a republic. Corsica belongs to France. Period. Consider this - the United States used to be a colony back before 1776 - so does that mean we refer to the 'properties' of Great Britain in their geography section? Nope. Do we refer to Alaska as being a part of the (old) Russian "region"? Nope. It's owned by the US. Plain and simple. So in an article on the geography of the area, maybe you could refer to such expressions - or definitely from a historical perspective. But to include it in the article that describes the country and its own geography? Definitely not. Take care! Rarelibra 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments on my Talk Page! I did not read the article about South Tyrol, but I can imagine where the mess comes from... Coming back for a last time about Corsica, it is clear that it is French (but don't say it too loud to some Corsicans... ;-)) altough in Europe today this facts are becoming less and less important. Anyway, mine was not a revanchist addition to the article (in Italy we have already enough islands to care about... ;-))

Have a nice day, Thanks again alex2006 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already told Yandman about this on my user talk page. I don't think he reads the talk archive you've been posting to :-) Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The file "Amapa Municipalities.png" has four municipalities in wrong places. I could edit the file, but I dont wanna mess with your work as I'm not a Map/Image expert like you. Could you make the changes? You just need to exchange "5" to "7", and "6" to "16". Tks! Gcoliveira 03:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rarelibra, now I've found a new municipality in the Alagoas state of Brazil. I've found the new map limits at http://mapas.ibge.gov.br/divisao (there is an option to export data to a dbf file). If you need more details, call me. I have some notes about it. Gcoliveira 08:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the conversations. It is interesting in some ways to see more and more the misconceptions that people have, or are taught to have. Martin stated his girlfriend speaks Italian but has no "Italian" roots, because her Dad is from the Region Friuli-Venezia Giulia and her mom from Island/Region Sardinia. Anyway, what I'm really wondering more and more where these real "Italians" are located... hah. Taalo 02:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Would you tell me why you removed my templates from the 1SG to MSG pages? I saw your comment when you reverted. However, when comparing it with the British and American infoboxes, it seems like a bit of a double standard. The only difference between my infobox and theirs is that I have included the rank insignia; that said, even with the rankk insignia I dare say my infobox is the same size or smaller than the other two.

--Rifleman 82 16:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair. I'll remove the rank insignia on and include the rank insignia as a single image. Would you help shrink other 2 infoboxes? --Rifleman 82 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rarelibra, I watch your good willling works. In any area, Iam ready to my best to collaborate with you. I will look that spscific matter asap.Regards.Must^TC 11:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's "incorrect", not in the English Wikipedia anyway. I left my feedback at that page, feel free to comment on it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. However, that's the nature of Wikipedia's policies (WP:NC→..article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize) and their interpretation. Have you ever seen the talk page of Kiev, for example? Ukrainian government explicitly prescribes to call the city "Kyiv" in English (and uses that spelling in all its English language publications), yet, despite the fact that this new spelling has been embraced by several major organizations in the US and Canada, Wikipedia would not rename the article. I see that this lake case is very much like the situation around Kiev/Kyiv—the obsolete name is used precisely because it is "most easily recognizable" by the English speakers, and "most easily recognizable" usually amounts to what usage is prevalent in reputable English language sources (major encyclopedias certainly being on the list). I personally disagree with this practice, but not so much as to go to trouble of challenging the policy; and as long as the policy stands, it must be complied with. If you want the article to be renamed, filing a move request is not enough—you need to target the underlying policy instead.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy flaw is pointless. It is the stubborn insensitivities of others when, say, Ukraine declares to use Kyiv in English and the 'majority' decides not to. Like they have the right to do so. It is the refusal to conform to culture and change in this ever-so-flattening world we live in. Diversity, sensitivity to culture, and cultural awareness are now key. I'm sure if those English speaking nations changed something, they would insist that others in the world conform to their standards, but refusal to do the same is inherently daft, at best. I am telling you, from an English speaking point of view, the article I quoted was in English and it quoted it as Lake Skadar. I am making a direct challenge for someone to point out exactly where the name "Scutari" comes from, and how it came to be appointed to use for this lake. Rarelibra 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your point, but even more I agree to the fact that it is not an encyclopedia's (any encyclopidia's) role to force and promote change; it is to document existing practices. If those practices are flawed and insensitive and stubbornly conservative, it is regretful, but that does not change the fact that they still need to be documented. And if we stick to documenting facts, then the articles in question should be use "Kiev" and "Scutari Lake" as the main title, and give whatever alternative names (and their explanations) in the body of the text. Really, read the talk page of Kiev—it's where all conceivable arguments and counter-arguments (and counter-counter-arguments) were discussed in a mind-boggling details. If you still disagree after that, go ahead, challenge the policy, but don't just call it "flawed" and ignore it for your convenience. Or, you can wait until more articles such as the one you quoted see light, affecting usage, and then (and only then!) prompting changes in tertiary sources, one of which is Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Ezhiki, but I don't agree with your belief at all. In the past, printed encyclopedias from various companies could (and were) very understandably one-sided, biased, and incomplete. However, Wikipedia was supposed to "bridge the gap" across the world and be the best encyclopedia in the world. When I first heard of the idea of one encyclopedia to take input from a variety of editors who could edit like we do, I thought that it would never work as people would never agree on a point. Then when I started to use Wikipedia more, I noticed that the accuracy of articles (at the time) was incredible... where else could I post a map like I did for Norway, only to be notified within days that the boundary or names had changed and be able to have an update so quickly. It was absolutely amazing. The realization of the specialized interest in each and every article on Wiki gave me hope. However, the attitude you quote of us having the "role... to document existing practices" is where I disagree vehemently. Wiki is the evolution of the modern-day encyclopedia - world-wide reaching and having the potential to be incredibly accurate. But as I quote, it instead sticks to ancient names and biased POV in articles like those listed on my home page. If the official name of the island, for example, is assigned as "Bozcaada" by the Turkish government, then we would use the English-translated equivalent (which, in this case, remains as "Bozcaada"). We would not attempt to default to "popular usage" just because that popular use seems correct - when, in fact, it is incorrect. In that essence, anyone who would publish an encyclopedia based on Wiki by improved even more with the correctness included, would be publishing something that evolved further than a language bias. I again point to the fact that the article I stated is proof enough - and wiki cautions against using Google (or any other) searches for "counting" as pointing out "popularity". Rarelibra 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to disagree with one another, it's just that I believe that this particular disagreement is more on fundamental principles rather than just on the name of the lake. I, as you might have guessed, am a believer in existing policies, especially long-standing ones. Besides, your analogy with "Yugoslavia" vs. Serbia, Montenegro, etc. is not entirely valid—what happened there was that one entity ceased to exist to be replaced with new, smaller ones. With the lake and Kiev—those have been there for ages, the entities are stable, it's just the names that fluctuate. While I myself personally would prefer seeing official usage more often than sticking to traditional names, I also realize that if such practice is adopted as policy replacing UE, it is going to create a whole lot of other serious problems, comparing to which Scutari would seem very minor indeed. This was discussed at length two or three years ago, and the decision was in favor of UE. I can provide a few examples when having a "use official name as a title" policy is going to be a problem—and if you are able to refute them all, heck, you should be challenging the existing policy instead of threatening to leave Wikipedia for good!

Anyway, let me know if you are interested in continuing this discussion. I also apologize for the delay with my reply—I was away for the past few days.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's probably not the best time to ask, but still: is it Friday yet where you are? :)

Challenging Wiki policy is like pushing pin needles into your eyeballs. You'll run into more stubborn "this is the way it is, too bad" opinions before you'll run into more "hey, let's make this the most accurate and correct encyclopedia" people. This is because of apathy and lack of cultural awareness, period. I'd rather have the most accurate information in my own database (that I distribute for FREE, btw) than to go through the heartache of trying to 'convince' those who have their thumb on keeping things inaccurate, obscure, and POV-ish.

I can at least publish a book or data that is more accurate, up-to-date, and correct, and make money off of it - that is the ultimate laugh. Rarelibra 17:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging wiki policy is an unpleasant task, which will most likely have you walking in circles around the same point over and over again, but it can be done. It's just not too many people are up to it, and one cannot really blame them for that because in the end ignoring inconveniences such as this and doing productive work does more good anyway. Then, again, there are policies that may seem flawed at the first glance, but one will appreciate their value after considering other alternatives. This particular policy, in my view, falls just under that category.

As for your book, go ahead, publish it (and sign me up for a copy, too, because I'll buy a book like that in an instant). It might just become one of the straws that ultimately changes the perception of what "common use" is. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to translate english labels to Bishnupriya Manipuri on Nepal's maps you created. For testing purpose I did some at BPY wiki please visit: bpy:নেপালর জিলাগি and bpy:নেপালর ক্ষেত্রগি. I won't change any on English Wiki or original file. I will give you full credit for your nice work. Also I will indicate all district sperately. Please note that you uploded administrative Zones as districts. I wiil seperate 15 Zones to 75 districts, if I may. For this thing I will request you for your kind permission, and I am doing all this for Bishnupriya Manipuri wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Please give me respond at my talk page at BPY Wiki Talk

Usingha 01:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your permission. Usingha 05:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look;Talk:Kızıl_River Regards Must^TC 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard and amazing work to supply maps to Turkey articles — Thank you on behalf of WikiProject Turkey! :-) Baristarim 19:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will also take a look at the article naming issue that you mentioned; have been too busy! Cheers!Baristarim 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why you list the Republic of Ireland along with England and Wales under the United Kingdom in the travels sections on your userpage? Somehow you don't strike me as a unionist type :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whoops... ah, fixed that one. Imagine if that had been a map... Rarelibra 16:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit the thought has crossed my mind :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not. From the brief looks of it there isn't much there I can use for administrative divisions, but it'll sure come handy for the main Adygea article, which at present is rather stubby. A good read for this weekend, at any rate :) Thanks for digging this up for me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was me who removed the image when I was swapping the infobox template. Why? I'm afraid I can't agree with you it's beautiful, simply because it has wholly unnatural, artificially oversaturated colors. – Caroig 19:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you misunderstood me or I might have expressed myself badly. I consider the colors unnatural BECAUSE they are ARTIFICIALLY (i.e. using photo editing software) OVERSATURATED. I didn't write that I hate the colors as such. Photography is one of my hobbies so I do know something about it. I would agree that many pictures (and especially of many Czech towns, and yeah, that is the communist heritage, I don't need to be reminded of that) benefit from adding a bit more saturation. This snap is, however, an artistic creation and not a realistic photograph, that was the reason why I removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caroig (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]