User talk:Shakko: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, Shakko, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! – BanyanTree 07:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding a picture to Zechariah (priest).

I see that you have added useful information to various pages about given names. If you would be interested in joining WikiProject Anthroponymy, you would be very welcome. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for invitation. Unfortunately, my English language is not quite good to write the big articles, but if you’ll need some consultations about Russian situation with this subject, I can help. —Shakko kitsune 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While editing History of Greece, you recently restored a link to Britain, a disambiguation page. You may wish to know that links in Wikipedia articles are not supposed to point to disambiguation pages. They’re supposed to link to relevant articles. You can find the guideline here. There is currently a project underway to eliminate links to disambiguation pages. You can find out about it here. The link to ukgbi is a redirect to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a perfectly valid way to link to that article that improves performance by using fewer bytes and saves excess typing. Please try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages.

Thank you for your kind attention, and happy editing.

—Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. —Shakko kitsune (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m reworking Fabergé eggs a lá the excellent ruwiki, I thought you might like to take a look 🙂 Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a compliment for me :). You know Russian language? Or it is online translation? If you’ll have some questions – be my guest. —Shakko kitsune (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online translation, I’m coping alright though. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you should know, Edmund Ironside and Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster are two different people. I’ve restored the image at Ironside. NJGW (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

С удоволствием, как только тут закончу. Я новие материали нашёл насчёт его творчества.– Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for pointing it out. Dark hyena (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of painters

Hello, Shakko! I’ve been approached with a question regarding your recent removal of painters from this list. Based on your first edit summary, you seem to have removed them because those articles were created by User:Leningradartist. However, please note that since none of those articles have been deleted, there is no formal reason why links to them should not be included in the list of painters, especially since they meet the list’s criteria. I have reverted your deletion. If you wish to pursue this matter further, please start a discussion on the talk page or start submitting particularly promotional articles to AfD. Links to articles deleted via the AfD process can, of course, be then removed from the list as well. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 24, 2013; 19:13 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Raul Julia-Levy#Son or not. Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think that you uploaded some portraits about Ottoman figures. Can you upload a better version of this file that you had uploaded previously? I mean without the white lines beside it. I want to use this one as the infobox image of Roxelana.Keivan.f^Talk 11:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have another one, sorry. —Shakko (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maria Dolgorukaya may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 “()”s. If you have, don’t worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator’s talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• «Смутное время Московского государства в начале XVII столетия 1604—1613» // Вестник Европы, 1866)</ref>. [[Nikolay Kostomarov]] in 1866 wrote that the notice about her was found by Afanasiy

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis I of Brzeg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 “()”s. If you have, don’t worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator’s talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | image = Court workshop of Duke Ludwig I of Liegnitz and Brieg (Polish – Saint Hedwig of Silesia with Duke Ludwig of Legnica and Brieg and Duchess Agnés – Google

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eadmer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 “()”s. If you have, don’t worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator’s talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [File:Eadmer of Canterbury (English – Life and Conversation of Anselm of Canterbury – Google Art Project.jpg|thumbnail|

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, When writing a stub Crimean journey of Catherine the Great, I came across your upload of File:Fireworks crimea.jpg Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) linked this painting to the strikingly resembling File:Plersch Night illumination of Kaniów.jpg. I did some search and found that the latter one refers to fireworks arranged by Polish king Stanislaw Poniatowski who met Catherine II in Kaniv on April 25 1787 while she was travelling down Dnieper on her voyage to Crimea. The occasion was mentioned, e.g., by Simon Sebag Montefiore, see here. (BTW this text helped me to solve a puzzle how Catherine appeared in Poland while visiting Crimea 🙂

Now, about your upload. As I understand (and see from the image) it is your photo of the painting. The question is how it is related to the painting Plersch. So, where did you see the painting? Who says the author is unknown? How did you come with the caption? Do you have any ideas how to resolve the issue of the painting you uploaded? Is it a version of the same author? A ‘pirated’ copy? Thank you, -No.Altenmann >t 05:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It is the fun of solving little puzzles of this kind that keeps me with wikipedia. -No.Altenmann >t 05:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I can remember, looking to the bad quality of photo 🙂 it is my own work. I saw and shot this picture in the Moscow State History museum. So it should be anonymous copy of Lviv painting; in 18th century they did such things very often. About caption – I can’t remember how exactly it looked like, possibly “during the way in Crimea”, not “in Crimea”… the difference in Russian is not too big. I think file can be renamed into File:Night illumination of Kaniów, copy after Plersch (Moscow Historical Museum).jpg or like this.

I like puzzles too – this is my collection of errors of portrait models – Kitty Fisher‘s portrait in Lavinia Fisher‘s article, etc… Should find time and translate it. —Shakko (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The caption to the “tree” your edit has added[1] is “Succession to the British throne – family tree (2015)”. Can you please clarify whether it is restricted to the persons in the “Tree list” (which is not a family tree}? One purpose of the article is to avoid confusion with genealogical listings and other topics such as members of the royal family or House of Windsor. Qexigator (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i can remove two catholic children. you mean that? —185.79.102.135 Shakko (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My question is whether Shakko is aware that there is an important difference between what is commonly known as a “family tree” and the enumerated list of persons in line of succession, which in the article is called the “Tree list”. My concern is that the image Shakko has constructed and inserted tends to a confusion of these, not clarification. Further, I doubt whether such a construction helps communicate to readers the information in the article. Moreover, the article itself has images (suitably sized for visibility) of the first six in line, which the Queen and Parliament have taken as the persons near enough to be within range of a realistic prospect of succession. When new-borns enter the line higher up, others cease to be among the current six, or, as any of the current six cease for any reason to be in line, others will move up and become one of the six. Everyone in the Tree list with an article is linked, and images can be seen there by anyone interested. Perhaps there is some other article where Shakko’s construction would be more suitable, as a tree. For example, in an article where the family tree is relevant, a symbol could be used to signify those who are listed in the Succession article’s enumerated tree list. Succession to titles and to property in the British royal family is distinct from the succession to the throne (and the monarch’s duties and responsibilties which go with it) as determined by the legislative enactments. Qexigator (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

look, the image is the easy way to understand the family relations between listed persons. Visual data is always more obvious. I did it ‘cos when I read the list it caused me some problems; as a reader I was confused – who is who for the queen, who is first cousin, who is second. So I did it as the additional reference. I can add current number to each person (near the photos), if you wish. Or you wants to change the caption to the picture? Something like “Family tree of persons in the list of Succession…”? I don’t see the problem with new-borns, it takes 5 minutes to change the picture in 2016, or when it will happen. What exactly the problem is? —Shakko (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if you wants to change the caption for more suitable – no problems, do it. As you can see, it isn’t the House of Windsor, it is only the persons from that list. —Shakko (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shakko, thank you for explaining your point about your intention to let this construction use visual data to show the family’s cousinship. But that article is about lines of future succession, first in direct descent from the queen, and then in the next collateral lines. It is not about family relationships and cousinships as such. Please reconsider the point you have made in connection with the points to the contrary in my above comment. My own view is that, all things considered, that article would be better without the image you have constructed, and I will propose on the Talk page that it be removed. Qexigator (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rodrigo de Villandrando (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:TWODABS

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. — Tavix ^(talk) 17:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Romeo and Juliet (1968 film) into Love Theme from Romeo and Juliet. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia’s content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia’s licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you’ve copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shakko! Thank you for adding your photo to the Haemophilia in European royalty article! I think it will be really helpful in allowing people to see how the disease spread. One thing though, could you remove Prince Maurice of Battenberg? He most likely didn’t have haemophilia, and so shouldn’t be included in the photo. 🙂 Piratesswoop (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shakko;

Would love to communicate with you via email regarding Rafael Sabatini, but I am lost in wikipedia world and probably not doing this correctly. Can you email me?

viktorsirin [at] gmail

Forrestphelps (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте, коллега Shakko. Я предполагаю, что это ваш ЖЖ. Могу ли я скопировать фрагменты этой картины в данную категорию Category:Dni Otomschenia Postigosha Nas для всеобщего пользования, позволяют ли это сделать правила о лицензии на изображения? Если это не ваш журнал, то извините за беспокойство. Wlbw68 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

блог мой, но фотки не мои — там стоит ссылка на nedocourious. Спокойно берите то, что без перспективного искажения, просто ровная репродукция – это PD-Art и PD-RusEmpire. А вот те фотографии, которые с перспективным искажением и видны куски стены или рамы — надо в фоторедакторе обрезать и убрать кривизну, тогда это тоже будет пд-арт. —Shakko (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо, я не сразу заметил ссылку. Что такое PD-Art и PD-RusEmpire я пока не знаю, буду разбираться.Wlbw68 (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PD-RusEmpire – это гениальнейшая вещь! Все, созданное в россии до 1917 – перешло в общественное пользование с победой коммунизма. PD-Art – все, автор чего умер более 70 лет назад. Но если вы не разбираетесь в лицензиях на коммонс, вам будет трудновато там разобраться с загрузками. Спрашивайте, если что. —Shakko (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Я хотел загрузить отдельные номера журналов Атеист, Безбожник в оцифровке с 1925 по 1934 год на коммонс. У меня есть сомнения можно ли это сделать, не удалят ли загрузки. Кому вообще принадлежит авторское право на эти издания? Понятно, что сами издательства, напечатавшие журналы, давно умерли.Wlbw68 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

это сложный вопрос, точно не могу сказать. Попробуйте спросить на форуме тут русском. —Shakko (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Self-Portrait (Titian, Berlin), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A “bare URL and missing title” error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Princes of royal blood (Russia) has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shakko. Please could you explain why you removed the category Patterns from the article Geometric symmetry (book)? Chapters 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 all have the word pattern in their titles, and the contents are all about patterns.GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Farnese Diadumenos has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s strange, I think I reworded the text, and put the direct quotes in quotation marks. Are you talking about the part describing the physical damage to the statue? It uses terms that are hard to describe in any other way. Oh well. I’ll pay closer attention. —Shakko (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]