This user may have left Wikipedia. Burschik has not edited Wikipedia since December 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Hello Burschik, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your excellent contributions - I was impressed with some of the stuff on the German language.
You might want to have a look some time at our Manual of Style - though the only obvious thing you've not picked up on yet is that we usually bold an article's title the first time it appears in an article (see what I've done with Second Germanic sound shift).
You should probably read our policies at some point too. But don't feel you have to read every policy document before you do anything. Dive in, be bold in editing, and if you do anything wrong, someone will be quick to correct it and let you know (hopefully, politely!)
Thank you so much for your additions to medieval literature! I wrote the article from scratch a year ago, and have since been begging people to add to it, because I know it's incomplete but I've been unable to get my mind around a good approach to expanding it. Your insertions are really fleshing it out -- so very appreciated! I hope you stick around a long time -- you obviously have a good head for this sort of thing. If I can be of any assistance to you, please do drop me a note on my talk page. Otherwise, I'll just see you around the place, I guess -- thanks again so much for your work on that article, and please, if you've more to add, keep it up! I made a couple very minor edits to your work, but otherwise it's fantastic and exactly what the article needs. Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 16:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi Burschik. Can I make one small suggestion? You've been marking an awful lot of what you've done as Minor Edits. It may be that you have "mark as minor by default" selected in your preferences. While it's to some extent a matter of personal choice, most people would agree that adding a paragraph to an article (as you did with the "anonymity" section of Medieval literature) is rather more than minor. In some cases, a single word might be more than a minor change.
Have a look at Wikipedia:Minor edit for some reasons why you should be careful about marking as minor. I would add to what's on that page that it also means you might not get the credit you deserve. Someone looking at your contributions would see a lot of minor edits and think that all you'd been doing was grammar, spelling and typos, whereas it's actually much more substantial and valuable work. --ALargeElk | Talk 11:19, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This seems to be a known bug - have a look at the village pump at the section on "More wrong red links" (though as far as I can make out, no-one seems to know quite why it's happening, just that it is). One workaround is to remove and then re-add the link from another page - I did that with Saffron and it now links OK. --ALargeElk | Talk 16:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Your editing of feast prompts this tip: There is no need to write [[tradition | traditions]], since writing [[tradition]]s achieves the same effect more efficiently (in particular, the whole word including the final "s" will appear in blue as a clickable link). Michael Hardy 20:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
From your list of contributions I clicked on casings. I would never have suspected that it was about sausages if not for the see-also link to sausage. You cannot assume that the reader found that page by following the link from sausage and therefore knows that it has something to do with sausages. That needs to be explicit. I've added that and moved the page to casing (sausage), and created a disambiguation page pointing there and also to casing (ammunition), which was formerly titled casing. I don't know why it would make sense that the article titled casing (singular) would be about ammunition while the one titled casings (plural) would be about sausages, but that was the situation before I moved these articles. Generally one avoids plurals as article titles (there are some exceptions, like Beattles or Joint Chiefs of Staff or orthogonal polynomials, where a singular would be absurd). Michael Hardy 20:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Burschik, can I just refer to your talk para in the above article:
"== Two articles ==
I think this should actually be two articles, a linguistic article on compound in general and another one on compounds in the English language, which most of this article is actually about. Burschik 15:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)"
unquote. Sorry, I hadn't actually seen your talk page until now, and what is more I am trying to merge both the original articles "Compound noun and adjective" and "Compound verb" into "Compound noun, adjective and verb" because really grammatically they belong together. The only thing is, having seen your note here can you enlarge on that a bit? Perhaps you can give me an idea how you see the articles split into linguistic and English in general? Sorry, to spring that on you. Dieter Simon 23:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Burschik, I see your point and I certainly would welcome a separate article on the compound words in other languages. The idea of including a few examples of Romance compound nouns in the English "version" was merely to show that they in fact exist in all European languages and perhaps should remain in the article as a reminder of this. So, please go ahead and create your article. I am looking forward to it. Dieter Simon 00:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On second thoughts, why not. Take whatever you need for your article on Romance, etc., compound words. You're quite right, they do belong to a separate article. Can you leave a link to it, however, in the English compound version and annotate it? Thank you. Dieter
Have replied to you on the "compound noun, adjective and verb" talk page. Dieter Simon 23:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
you'r my new best friend on wikipedia because you'r into linguistics. Thanks for noticing the sociolinguistics category I created. If you'r anything like me you'v already gotten discouraged about the lack of material in this area on this 'pedia. If you know other wikipedians that are into linguistics and/or sociolinguistics please tell um to contribute like crazy. wikipedia needs it. I like slang a lot which sort of flies in the face of an encyclopedia which is out to codify and keep language pretty formal. Do check out my infant project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociolinguistics/Slang. thanks, Kzzl 18:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, I added the category thing to the language template page, so hopefully others will follow suit. There is a problem with the category system, however, as it requires a category statement on the page to be listed. In the case of English, this would require 105 category statements on the English language page, which is clearly not feasible. Another possibility would be to include a normal wiki link on the category page. Maybe one should do that? Burschik 08:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man(comment) (talk)[[]] 15:33, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
and a fact from the article Teewurst, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.
- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:24, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
Commonly a user applying a cleanup notice to an article gives some hint of what is missing, or what needs work, in that article's Talk page. A more stylish technique is to actually do the cleanup editing oneself. Stickers are more easily applied, it is true. --Wetman 13:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The point was mis-taken, in that User Burschik then replaced the sensible and witty version with a pedestrian version crafted in his spare time. The original version may be seen now, however, at Talk:Appositive. A good general rule at Wikipedia, followed by the better sort of editors, is Avoid unnecessary interference. --Wetman 11:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To quote from the Wikipedia edit page template: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Burschik 12:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
and a fact from the article crème fraîche, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.
I removed the paragraphs that were added in front of the original introduction for two reasons: Firstly because no attempt was made to improve or extend the original introduction; the new paragraphs were simply added on, and there was a strong break between the old and the new. Secondly because I felt the new paragraphs were long-winded and inaccurate compared to the old introduction. Burschik 14:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, opinions fairly stated. I take it that you mean that the chapter should be about visual arts, and not the broader, more abstract meaning of the word.
Not necessarily. How about reworking the "defining art" section of the article rather than the introduction? To me, this would seem a more appropriate place to distinguish art and entertainment. As needy as the article may be, I think its introduction is quite adequate. Burschik 15:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:27, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your addition of Russian architecture to the "History of western architecture" series, because it is a series about the history of architecture rather than the architecture of individual countries. You will notice that the other articles refer to the architecture of a certain period only. Thus, an article on Stalinist architecture, for example, would be a more appropriate addition if that style of architecture were sufficiently influential. Burschik 14:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
So please explain why Sumerian architecture (which may hardly be termed "western", BTW) and Byzantine architecture made their way to the list? I don't see how medieval Russian architecture was less influential than the Byzantine one. Moreover, the "History of Western architecture" in EB 2004 includes a section on medieval Russian architecture up to ca. 1700. --Ghirlandajo 14:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the discussion page of the template, I said that I was not sure Sumerian architecture belonged in the series. Feel free to remove it. If you think Byzantine architecture had less influence than Russian architecture (on the Western tradition) please feel free to remove it also. But the main point I wanted to make is that the article on Russian architecture is not an article about a specific period in the history of architecture, unlike the others in the list. You will note that the list does not include German architecture, French architecture or Italian architecture either. Burschik 15:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against Sumerian architecture, whilst the presence of Byzantine architecture is peremptory. I just want to point out that neither German architecture nor Dutch architecture nof Swedish architecture are truly individual, as they are covered by terms "Gothic", "Romanesque", "Renaissance", etc. The Russian architecture, on the other hand, had been isolated for centuries, so the terms like gothic or renaissance are hardly applicable to it. In other words, removing R.a. from the list makes a void which other entries would not compensate. --Ghirlandajo 15:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to congratulate you on your work on this. I'll try to get back to working on it at some point, but as you can see, it has been some time. Warofdreamstalk 12:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The portal looks great. Have you seen the architecture timeline? We have pages on decades in architecture prior to 1750, and you have been creating articles for each year. Either approach is fine with me, but it would be good to merge the two - so that we either have a 1690s in architecture article and redirects from 1691 in architecture, etc, or articles for each year with a list of them (and perhaps a brief overview) for each decade. Warofdreamstalk 13:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A script sounds like an interesting idea - I'd love to see it work. Do you have the skills to create one? Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't generate a timeline automatically. Warofdreamstalk 09:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another congratulations here, on timeline of architecture and wikiportal architecture. One question or request though. Can we change and archive the featured article and image, maybe starting to cycle them once a month or bimonthly? I would like to participate in this and will probably replace the article and start an archive now that it has been about two months for the current ones. I have three nominations I would like to make for a new featured article, and my uncertainty is whether a wikiportal feature needs to go through peer review and the same nomination as main page features. So my nominations are Seattle Central Library (no peer review), Xanadu House (peer review), and El Lissitzky (previous main page feature), and kitchen (a good article). Please let me know what you think. DVD+ R/W 18:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:
If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.
Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412T 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to build a consensus for a Wikiproject Peer review process. I've opened a discussion page here. Would you like to comment? Would you be prepared to take part in the peer review process? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Chinwag 12:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I posted the IG Farben Building on the FAC on the 17th July. It currently has a support consensus, but only from 4 people. I'd be more comfortable with a stronger consensus and was wondering if you might be prepared to comment on the article? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Chinwag 12:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. On June 20, you added the "globalize/USA" tag to Healthy diet, noting in your edit summary that the article was US-centric. I'm wondering why you think that, when the article is in fact, UK-centric, and not focused on US guidlines. Perhaps you meant to add UK instead of US? You may be interested in looking at the references. —Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
I thought you might like to know that the architecture portal you created last year received featured status this morning - cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unspecified source for Image:Mentha spicata 02.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Mentha spicata 02.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nicke L 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I noticed you were the one who removed the stub tag and I wanted to say thank you. This page was my first ever edit to an article and I wasn't sure if I had added enough information to merit the stub tag removal, so thanks for the vote of confidence. :-) Reply on my talk page if you have suggestions for improvement; I am also looking for adoption by a more experienced user so if you want to adopt me or know someone who wants to adopt a new user, I'm available! See you later! GordonJTaylor 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wooooo there. You've replaced some architecture stubs for structure stubs. I'd rather you added the structure stubs rather than replaced them. You see the thing is we can add project banners to all architecture stubs using a bot - if we do this to all structures - everymans garden shed, telephone pole, electricity pylon and various other undersirable erections we'll have to run the bot on structure stubs and will end up with architecture project banners on all sorts of stuff we'll need to wade through at WP:ARCHA. Putting the location specific struct stub on is fine - but would you mind leaving the arch-stubs where they are. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Burschik! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 1821 in architecture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. JustBerry (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.
However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as {{own}}, amending the {{information}} added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{Media by uploader}} or {{Presumed self}} tag(s) if present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).
IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Burschik. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Burschik. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Burschik. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a dictionary definition for an obscure term. I did not find any sources indicating that it is significant as a stand-alone concept. (Also proposing deletion of Determinans.)
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.
This is a dictionary definition for an obscure term. I did not find any sources indicating that it is significant as a stand-alone concept. (Also proposing deletion of Determinatum.)
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.
Hello Burschik! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
