User talk:Afil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Afil/Archive 1

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

Contents 1 River Deletion Tag 2 Dam articles 3 Your edit summary usage 4 Barnstar 5 Suggestion about river articles 6 Basa River 7 AfD nomination of Bella River 8 Mânăstirea River (Bârlad) 9 Smile! 10 Commons:Image:Altman-akhmatova.jpg 11 Re: Expand Tags 12 river infoboxes 13 Gherpălocul Mare River 14 Talna 15 Bica River 16 Romanian rivers 17 Romanian rivers 18 river basin categories 19 Valea Gălbenele River 20 WQA 21 Fântâniţa River (Chilbucuţ) 22 Copy & paste move 23 Caradja? Fine. But "Jean Georges"?! 24 Eight thousand rivers 25 Moving pages 26 Cehal River 27 Matila Ghyka 28 New Project 29 WikiCookie 30 Communes 31 Valea Seacă River 32 Romanian Rivers

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Basa River

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

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Smile!

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Talna

While patrolling, I saw you had quite a few pages on Romanian rivers. Good work! Basketballoneten 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm half Romanian, and went to the Talna when I was nine. Basketballoneten 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Romanian rivers

Consider adding {{river}} and {{WikiProject Romania}} to the rivers' talk pages. Basketball110 _{the pages I've messed up completely} 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian rivers

What would you say the importance for these articles are for WikiProject Romania? Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 19:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] WikiCookie

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Valea Seacă River

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

[edit] 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 :) Razorflame 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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