User talk:Afil/Archive 2

I ignore rude or anonimous messages.Afil (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River Deletion Tag

The reason I tagged it was because we can't have an article on every river in the world. There should be some sort of notability criteria because there are millions of rivers and we don't want an article on every river on the entire planet. Thundermaster^TRUC 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why we can't have a few million. Computer disk space is very cheap. One million rivers at 10 kB an article (which includes infobox and map) = 10 GB, about $10.00 total and going down rapidly. If there are in fact any on Mars, we can add them for that planet also. DGG (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dam articles

You've tagged a number of dam articles for speedy deletion, the reason you give does not really meet the criterion for speedy deletion. A joint WP:Articles for deletion discussion combining the problem articles would probably serve best. Or, if you believe this is an urgent hoax, a post on WP:ANI about it will allow fuller discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary usage

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Ohmpandya (Talk) 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For toughing out the above naysayers and making decent stubs about Romanian rivers anyway.Kannie \| talk 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion about river articles

Seriously, you are going out of your way with the river pages. It is nice that you contribute, but think of how many people will visit those pages like Ceptura River. you do not even have a length for it! This is my suggestion and I think it would give some chance of users to actually read those articles. First decide how to grou rivers (for example say [[Affluents of <inser river>]], say Olt) and then have a very detailed table with length, counties, etc, etc. I STRONGLY suggest to redirect ALL the rivers that have less than 100km to the main page (say Affluents of Olt). This wa, the notability guidile will be at least partially enforced. Thanks and I hope this helped. Nergaal (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunatelly you kind of missed my points. I am not aware of WP rivers and what was decided there. I was just saying that fey IF ANY people will ever get to visit most of the pages about river you are creating. I personally would be way more interested in a page where I can compare rivers that are in the same area, or stuff like that, and I am not sure anybody would care more than that for expample for the Ceptura river. as for the 100 km, it was a random ORIENTATIVE limit.

"The information about the rivers wil be gradually increased after the network information and the links indicating the tributaries of each river and the mouth of each river will be identified and included in the articles." like what information do you actually think will be 'gradually' added? seriously? I am going to give a personal example: I have created 11 articles on the metropolitan zones in Romania (not tenths as you seem to be creating). each zone has hundrets of thousants of inhabitants, of which some could contribute. unfortunatelly it doesn't really happen. and if for example the metropolitan zone of Bucharest, there are few people who add information, how many people do you think even know about Ceptura river in order to contribute??

all this was a suggestion to not spend your energy in vain on articles that don't even qualify for the notability guidliness that are required for the creation of articles. Nergaal (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basa River

Why did you change the references back? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's get them right from the start, otherwise it will become a mess. Presumably they are references that relate to the river, and as you only have a single sentence, so they should be relevant. See WP:CITE for the various referencing styles. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article via "Random article", but what difference does that make? Just because others are wrong, doesn't mean that we shouldn't fix this one, does it? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bella River

An editor has nominated Bella River, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bella River and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mânăstirea River (Bârlad)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mânăstirea River (Bârlad), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Mânăstirea River (Cerna). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Kannie has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

It appears that your article will be kept! --Kannie | talk 02:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Image:Altman-akhmatova.jpg

Hi!
I had placed Image:Altman-akhmatova.jpg to Commons with all the descrition, that you had published in en-wiki project. But Phrood doubts whether George Mitrevski, whoes letter you were citing, do really own the copyright on this artwork. Whould you be so kind as to explain the metter there, as Phrood had requested for the image deletion. Thanks in advance --MaryannaNesina (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Expand Tags

I'm not too sure what your talking about. I haven't tagged any stub pages have I? Dustihowe Talk 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

river infoboxes

I'm not sure whether you have Mureş River on your watchlist, so I'll write it again on your talk page. I don't think the present contents of the infoboxes in Romanian river articles are how they should be. Are all the mentioned villages notable (BTW I wouldn't call Târgu Mureş and Arad villages)? Are all the mentioned rivers really major tributaries? If we really want to give all this information, I think it should go into the main text of the articles, and only the really important places (e.g. population over 20,000) and rivers (e.g. length over 50 km, or average discharge over 5 m³/s, or more than 20% of the discharge of the main river) into the infobox. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). This probably goes for more articles about rivers in Romania, I just stumbled upon this one. Markussep ^Talk 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please respond to my questions? Markussep ^Talk 09:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still compiling the data on rivers. When I will get all the basic information in place I will sort it out. The figures you indicate cannot be applied identically to all countries or all rivers. The size of the tributaries cannot be the same for the Mississippi and for the Mureş, neither can the localities. There are also other criteria for which rivers might be important, except their discharge. Just give me time to finish. I have not yet worked on the discharge data.Afil (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afil, thanks for answering. I'm not asking you to create perfect articles at once. My point is that the infoboxes for the main rivers of Romania look horrible right now. In the Mureş article, I have to push "page down" 6 times to see the bottom of the infobox. Infoboxes "are designed to present summary information about an article's subject" (quote from the Manual of Style I mentioned above). See for instance Volga River. If a reader wants to know what are the main cities on the Mureş, and what are the main tributaries, he/she will go to the infobox. I'd say 5-6 cities max. (probably Târgu Mureş, Alba Iulia, Deva, Arad and Szeged), and also 5 right and 5 left tributaries max. (right: Arieş, left: Niraj, Târnava, Sebeş, Strei). I can help, of course. Markussep ^Talk 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Mureş article the way I indicated above. I think this a better format for the larger rivers (Prut, Mureş, Olt, Siret, Ialomiţa, Someş, Argeş, Jiu etc.). Markussep ^Talk 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gherpălocul Mare River

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Gherpălocul Mare River, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talna

While patrolling, I saw you had quite a few pages on Romanian rivers. Good work! Basketball one ten 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half Romanian, and went to the Talna when I was nine. Basketball one ten 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a member of the Romanian WikiProject? I've been marking all of the river articles with a RO template. Basketball one ten 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bica River

it was a redirect to the name Bicu River, you moved the page to the other title. If you think the redirect is wanted, just tell me and i will undelete it. DGG (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian rivers

Consider adding {{river}} and {{WikiProject Romania}} to the rivers' talk pages. Basketball 110 _{the pages I've messed up completely} 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian rivers

Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

What would you say the importance for these articles are for WikiProject Romania? Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was (I hadn't realized that I worded it that way) was: {{WikiProject Romania|class=stub|importance=''what goes here?''}} ::if you could fill in the blank at "what goes here". Is it "low" importance, or "mid" importance. Thank you for the info, though. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 19:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

river basin categories

Hi Afil,

I just discovered that there are two categories for the Tisza/Tisa and its tributaries: Category:Rivers of the Tisa-Iza-Vişeu subbasin and Category:Tisza basin. I started a categories for merger discussion here. Maybe there are more duplicates, see Category:Danube basin and its subcategories. Also, the subbasins of the Tisza should be subcategories, I already added the Criş basin. I think it's an interesting way to organise the river articles. If I have time some day, I can help. Markussep ^Talk 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moved here from my talk page [Markussep]: The rivers of Romania are officially grouped in river subbasins. One of those is called the Tisa-Iza-Vişeu subbasin. Merging this with other subbasins, such as the Tisza, practically eliminates this information which is essential. It does not have only geographic but also administrative implications. River basin agencies exist in other countries too, therefore the issue is not related only to Romania. But in each country, just as the adminstrative departments or counties have to be taken into account, the official river basin division have also to be respected. It would be wrong to make rules of our own.Afil (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officially according to what office? I don't think these categories should have anything to do with agencies. A river basin is a the area (and rivers in it) that is drained through a certain river. That is the way these categories were set up from the start. See for instance Category:Loire basin. The category "Tisza basin" is meant for (sub)tributaries of the Tisza. That includes tributaries in Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine etc. I don't see the merit of a separate category for tributaries of the Tisza in Romania, or a part of Romania as defined by some agency. If you think you have good reasons not to merge them, write them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 28. Markussep ^Talk 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Gălbenele River

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Valea Gălbenele River, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Valea Coştilei River. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

It was requested that you provide diffs at the WQA. Can you please come back and help us understand the situation so that we can help assess and resolve the situation? Thanks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fântâniţa River (Chilbucuţ)

A tag has been placed on Fântâniţa River (Chilbucuţ), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RyRy5 talk 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy & paste move

Please do not move articles by copying and pasting the content. See Help:Merging_and_moving_pages#How_to_rename_a_page for more information. Thanks. bogdan (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caradja? Fine. But "Jean Georges"?!

Ok, I can perhaps understand why you would consider naming to the "dja" variant (though I'm pretty sure neither of the guys involved in editing those pages checked to see if the name is really preferred in English). But why on Earth would you even consider Francizing the given names? It would make sense to assign those guys their English names (per what other royals are named, and presuming it is being done in the real world), their Greek names (per what they were), or their Romanian names (since that's where they ruled). Either would be fine. But the French names? I mean, come on, are we back to experimenting? Dahn (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. Yes, I can agree that the Romanian name could and should be replaced. But. For one, the naming conventions we apply here would trace beck to English, meaning that the name we favor should preferably trace back to English equivalents in situations where this is not absurd (i.e.: where we are not inventing names ourselves). Of the possible variants, "John Caradja" seems like it could do fine, as it does have a precedent in English sources (just google "John Caradja"). Secondly, your argument in favor of not using the Romanian name and referring to what the man was called, just in case you don't agree with the English variant, should lead back to a Greek variant, or even a Turkish variant, before it reaches a French variant. You say that you picked it up from a wikipedia user. Frankly, this argument in itself would not make the cut in such a debate, but, provided he actually claimed to have knowledge of this, did you at least ask him if it was not the name present in a French-language source? Furthermore, it serves logic that the man must have also signed (earlier, more and more important) documents in Greek, and that he was baptized with a Greek name. Likewise, what (some) of his descendants did with their names is absolutely irrelevant in this case - for example, the first Jagiellons would not come to have Polish names because their descendants did, the early Bonapartes from Genoa would not become French because of their Little Corporal great-great-grandson, etc. And, let me add as a side note, since I notice you also changed the name on rowiki: just as wiki would favor the existing English language variant on enwiki, so does/should rowiki center on the Romanian variant, provided it is not fabricated. Dahn (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking it up with the user whom I saw changing the spelling in 1000 different articles based on a hunch. Incidentally, I also asked Strenic the same thing, but you were quicker to reply. Either way, take some time to consider these issues before you start modifying articles, because you are giving other editors a mess to deal with in case it should prove you (or Strenic) are not right. And please also note that, with your rejection of Romanian bias, you are preaching to the choir, but two wrongs do not make a right. Dahn (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Afil, concerning the English version I signalated to Dahn that for me the anglization of the given name "Ioan Gheorge" would also be fine, I just had a justified issue with "Caragea". But the actual version is fine for me as well, so please feel free to decide and change if you think it is of use (but we should do it than again in all related pages). Thanks again for the help and have a nice evening, Stenic74 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight thousand rivers

I just looked over your contribution and I noticed you created 8000 articles on small rivers in Romania. Do you realize that probably a hundred or two can be full articles, for the rest they're going to be perpetual stubs because there's nothing to write on them. Probably more than half of them are not even rivers, but streams that get water only in the rainy seasons and they're just ravines in the rest.

Anyway, is there going to be more about Andronic River than what it is now: "The Andronic River is a tributary of the Bistriţa River in Romania."?

Don't you think it would be more appropriate for them to be merged in a list? bogdan (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own, unsolicited opinion: had I been asked before you began the project, I would have advised putting the rivers in some sort of list, with the possibility of splitting off entries once more information became available. At this point, though, I say we should keep the 8000: a) sunk cost - it's been a tremendous effort; and b) unlike in other domains, where we can leave out less notable entities, an argument can be made (and is being made rather strongly due to the size of this endeavour) that we can only have a complete and accurate picture of Romania's hydrological landscape once every river is listed. So I say: here's to the next 8000! Biruitorul (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Jiu and pasted it into Jiu (disambiguation). This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Finally, in this case, the end result will be to move the page back to its original title, because it is now a malplaced disambiguation page. Thank you. Russ (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cehal River

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cehal River, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Santău River. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matila Ghyka

Could you please supply a full bibliographic citation to the reference that you recently added to Matila Ghyka? Please see WP:CITE. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 06:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added this to the References section:

The World Mine Oyster - Heinemann, London 1961

What is it? A book? A citation of any source should begin with the full name of the author. The title of a book is always in italic type; titles of shorter works are in "quotation marks". Unless the whole work is about Ghyka, give the page numbers that support the text of the article. Citations also give the place of publication (you did that), year (you did that), and the name of the publisher. For a book, if an ISBN number is available, it should be given as well. WP:CITE, which I linked in my first message to you, explains how sources should be cited in Wikipedia. You might find it helpful to use citation templates because they do the formatting for you and provide separate fields for each item of information. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Finell (Talk) 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCookie

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communes

În primul rând, mulţumesc frumos, scuze pentru întârzâiere, şi Adevărat a înviat! As for the communes: I fully agree the articles need proper expansion - links to ro.wiki, references, coordinates, and so on. However, my goal right now is just to start those articles, and go back later for expansion - I think it's a good idea to be able to say we have an article on each commune, no matter how short at first. Regarding naming: as I understood it, if there's only one commune by a certain name (say Sâncel), then the county name isn't added, but if there is (say Dumbrăveni, Suceava and Dumbrăveni, Constanţa) then it should be. However, I can see how adding the county everywhere would be more efficient, and that is something we should discuss, maybe on the noticeboard. Biruitorul (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Seacă River

Can you please some English references for this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Rivers

Hi there! I would just like to thank you for creating all of the Romanian river pages. I have been porting them over to the Simple English Wikipedia (about 175ish down), and I made them appropriate for the site. Just thought that I would let you know that I've been using your articles over on the Simple English Wikipedia. Hope you don't mind :) Razor flame 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. If you would like to look them over, feel free to drop on by the Simple English Wikipedia! Cheers, Razor flame 00:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bessarabia in the Russian Empire move request

Although it is often assumed by closing admin's, you might want to explicitly support your move request of Bessarabia in the Russian Empire or signify otherwise if you don't. — AjaxSmack 03:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Polje

Hello, I ask you to review your vote in Talk:Kosovo Polje#Requested move, I am aware that Kosovo Polje is of great importance to serbian history, but this article is not about that, as I have said in the request it (the article) is about a municipality in Kosovo, a place where albanian is the primary language, so please consider changing your vote, it is of course your decision, cheers and and have a nice day :) -- C D 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Moldova

Hi Alif, I noticed that you moved History of Moldova to History of the Republic of Moldova. I reverted the move, since customarily in such situations the short name of the country is used. For example, for the history of Bulgaria the article is called History of Bulgaria, not History of the Republic of Bulgaria. Do you believe that there are any extraordinary circumstances in the case of Moldova that would justify using the full name in the history article? If you are thinking about the ambiguity of the word "Moldova," which can refer to both country and the historical region in Romanian, in English (and especially on the English Wikipedia), the word Moldavia is generally used for the region and Moldova for the country, in order to remove this ambiguity. TSO1D (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Bölükbaşı"

A page you created, Bölükbaşı, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is very short and provides little or no context.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Valea Mierezului River

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Valea Mierezului River, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violonist

Hi, your edit reflects a common misunderstanding of terms. A violonist is someone who plays the violone, while a violinist is someone who plays the violin. It seems that this is a common mistranslation from the French, where a violinist is called violoniste, because the violin is called violon, which however is clearly different from French violone. I reverted your edits. Cheers, --FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guten morgen

Si tu as un moment à consacrer à Wikipedia anglophone, voudrais-tu s'il te plaît regarder un peu les articles Moldovan language, Controversy over national identity over the Republic of Moldova, Abstand language et Ausbau language, et me donner ton opinion ?

Le problème sur ces articles est que les contributeurs les plus travailleurs et présents (par exemple Xasha ou Illythr) ont beaucoup de culture politique, mais peu de culture scientifique, et ils commettent des amalgames et des anachronismes :

pour eux la "langue moldave" et l'identité Moldave modernes,, d'origine soviétique, expérimentées à partir de 1924 dans la République autonome moldave créée en Ukraine (identité de la Moldawien, comme vous dites) est la même que l'identité moldave ancienne (de la Fsm. Moldau, comme vous dites)

pour eux, si un gouvernement change le nom d'une langue (imagine l'Autriche décidant de nommer sa langue actuelle "Österreicher"), C'EST une autre langue, même s'ils reconnaissent qu'elle est "identique" à la langue voisine (imagine : "l'Autrichien est identique à l'Allemand, mais c'est une autre langue, et d'ailleurs il a précédé l'Allemand, puisque le Bayrisch-Österreichisch Hochdeutsch y était parlé avant l'Allemand" : tu vois un peu la distorsion logique ?).

pour eux, l'"alphabet cyrillique moldave", c'est celui en usage de 1938 à 1989 (et encore aujourd'hui en Transdniestrie) et c'est lui qui était utilisé avant que la Roumanie n'impose l'alphabet latin (en réalité, la langue est-romane parlée in die Siebenbürgen, Walachei und Moldau Fürstentumer, s'écrivait avec un alphabet cyrillyque gréco-slavon particulier jusqu'en 1857, puis est passée au latin, et lorsque dans la République autonome moldave créée en Ukraine, les soviétiques l'ont de nouveau écrite en cyrillique, ce fut cette fois le cyrillique RUSSE légèrement adapté).

Chaque fois que j'apporte une contribution, ils affirment que c'est un POV nationaliste roumain, ils me l'effacent, ou bien ils mettent en doute les références, et si c'est un article, ils le proposent à la suppression.

J'ai aussi des difficultés avec quelques contributeurs roumains (dont l'un s'appelle Bonaparte der Kaiser, pourtant il vit aussi en Allemagne). Ceux-ci non plus n'admettent pas les références scientifiques. La référence scientifique, c'est qu'il y a 4 langues est-romanes: l'Istro-roman jadis parlé en Istrie, l'Aroman (que vous appelez Aromuner) parlé en Macédoine, le Mégléno-roman (disparu) et le DACO-ROMAN appelé Roumain en Roumanie et Moldave en Moldavie. On peut aussi, en Français, admettre les mots: Istro-roumain, Aroumain, Megleno-roumain et Daco-roumain.

Mais, pour beaucoup de contributeurs roumains, il n'y a qu'une langue: le Roumain, point. L'Istro-roumain, l'Aroumain et le Megleno-roumain ne sont que des dialectes du Roumain qui est le seul nom correct. Cette position découle du combat des historiens roumains pour démontrer la continuité latinophone en Roumanie contre Rössler : la Roumanie actuelle étant pour eux le seul foyer ancestral admissible, forcément les Istro-roumains, Aroumains et Megleno-roumain ne peuvent venir que de Dacie, donc ce sont des dialectes.

Ne pas arriver à partager des connaissances scientifiques vérifiées et référencées (et qui existent aussi dans Wikipédia, dans d'autres articles), c'est assez frustrant et cela décourage. De plus, dans un domaine aussi restreint que la Moldavie, il n'y a pas assez de spécialistes qui soient idéologiquement et émotionnellement neutres.

Sur le Wikipédia français c'est plus facile qu'en Anglais ou Roumain, parce que c'est un sujet qui suscite surtout de l'indifférence dans le monde francophone.

J'imagine que Moldau/Moldawien, cela doit être dans le style "GLADIATOR" sur le Wikipedia allemand aussi, avec tous les roumanophones et les russophones que vous avez... Ca doit ressembler aux polémiques TURCS/KURDES ou CHINOIS/TIBETAINS...

Si tu as envie d'intervenir un peu sur Moldovan language, Controversy over national identity over the Republic of Moldova, Abstand language et Ausbau language, n'hésite pas. Viel Danke, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image:Ledaatomica.jpg)

You've uploaded Image:Image:Ledaatomica.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Moldavian Rhapsody

OK with this your opinion. Thank you for writing in french. It's so easier for me ! Coana Chiriţa and the governments are not scientific referencies. For my opinion, scientists ans scholars must use the words: "East Romance languages", and in this category:

"Daco-Roman (called Romanian and Moldovan)",

"Aroman (called Aromanian, Vlach, Macedo-romanian a.o.)",

"Megleno-Roman (called Megleno-Romanian)" and

"Istro-Roman (called Istro-Romanian, Istrian or Cician)".

But you're right, the consensus is not for today... And the actual "Romanian" is a pidgin. From my opinion, one root of this problems is the confusion between "ethnicity" (Droit du Sang in french: history, culture, language, music, faith...) and citizenship (Droit du Sol in french: the political belong). I'm a "mixed bastard" by origins (Aroman, Greek, Romanian and others) but I'm a Frenchman by citizenship and also by a large part of my past and my culture. Another root is the miss of knowledge. When we keep some knowledge, we have more doubts, more tolerance, more opened mind.

I hope to see, may be a day before my death, the citizens of Moldova to became equally Moldovans, all of them, and the citizens of Romania to became equally Romanians, all of them (selon le Droit du Sol), with the entire liberty to be, by culture, romanians, russians, hungarians, even meltenians if they want (see "Hospodariat de Melténie" on the french Wikipedia, between the "Micronations"). Thank you Afil for your longue digression, cu uräri de bine, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Afil, there was no reason to speedy delete your stub de:Ernst Rudolf Vogenauer, so i've decided to keep! Viele Grüsse und danke für den Artikel, —YourEyesOnly (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]