User talk:Mecena
Please don't add articles in Category:Romanian writers if they are already included in at least one sub-category of it. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. bogdan (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mecena, please stop adding supracategories to articles that are already in subcategories. This counts as disruption, and you may eventually get blocked for it. Dahn (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. And, in case you want to categorize in that area, let me suggest you invest your energy not in placing back articles in the subcategories back into the ubercategory, but rather in placing articles from the ubercategory into one or several of the narrower subcategories. Best, Dahn (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As vrea sa incep prin a afirma ca includerea unor articole intr-o categorie nu serveste crearii sau confirmarii unui circuit informational, si nici nu este un criteriu de valoare - scopul unei categorii este pur si simplu de a oferi un sistem de navigare care sa fie cat mai rational si sa permita utilizatorilor sa gaseasca exact ce-i intereseaza cat mai repede (ceea ce presupune ca prezenta unui articol intr-o categorie inutila va fi oricum ignorata in cam 90% din cazuri). De altfel, rationamentul dvs privind circuitul informational ar insemna ca la fel de bine am putea sa aruncam toate articolele despre scriitori in Category:Writers (daca intrati acolo, va rog sa clickati si pe subcategoriile specifice Category:Writers by nationality, Category:Writers by genre etc., si o sa va convingeti ca a parazita nivelurile de categorisire cu aceleasi articole este foarte contraproductiv si destul de enervant pentru persoanele care s-au obosit sa aranjeze intreg domeniu). Ideal, toate articolele ar trebui sa existe in subcategorii, atunci cand acestea pot fi create, pentru a apropia termenii de cautare cat mai mult unul de altul.
In ce priveste wikipedia in romana: din cauze obiective si subiective, wikipedia in romana are mari probleme in a respecta standardele de pe alte wikipedii, si in a aplica cerintele sistemului cu rost; este foarte posibil ca o persoana care nu s-a familiarizat cu logica intrinseca a categriilor a facut ce ati facut si dvs mai devreme, numai ca nimeni nu l-a vazut, nimanui nu i-a pasat, sau a insistat sa faca acelasi lucru pana a obosit toata lumea. Dupa cum spuneam, faptul ca o regula este incalcata orisiunde nu valideaza incalcarea regulii. Va multumesc, Dahn (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Va rog sa nu ma faceti responsabil pentru ce spuneti ca au facut altii - nu imi asum motivele pentru care au fost inlocuite alte versiuni editate de catre dvs, dar pot sa va indic cateva lucruri care sa va pot servi pentru a urmari standardele wikipedia. Pentru inceput, in ce priveste Literature of Romania: acel articol ar trebui pur si simplu rescris, iar partea in cauza, cu "fine examples", stearsa (continutul relevant trebuind sa fie inclus in textul propriu-zis) - este in contradicitie flagranta cu WP:NPOV. De altfel, motivul pentru care este asa tine de faptul ca nu i-a fost acordata suficienta atentie - va rog sa remarcati ca este in contradictie flagranta cu un articol conext ca Mihail Sadoveanu, pe care eu personal l-am adus la standardele wikipedia. Astfel de standarde nu sunt aplicate consecvent, dar aceasta nu este din cauza ca nu vrem, ci ca nu putem s-o facem oricand si oriunde. Eu unul am de gand sa dau atentie acelui articol (ca si pandantului sau Art of Romania), imediat ce voi avea mai mult timp si voi avea rabdarea sa intervin cu informatie de calitate, citand sursele. Sunt perfect de acord in ce priveste scaparile, dar imbunatatirea presupune efort (de redactare a textului si citare a surselor) si efortul presupune timp.
- Cat priveste exemplele de scriitori lipsiti de renume, solutia ar fi ca asemenea articole sa fie nominalizate pentru stergere (un alt efort, care presupune interes si argumentatie). Sunt de acord cu dvs ca sunt material de autopromovare, dar va rog sa intelegeti ca alta solutie in afara de aceasta nominalizare la stergere nu sta in puterea unui editor, si ca nu puteti reprosa altuia ca nu face ceea ce puteti face si dvs. Si va rog sa intelegeti ce am spus si mai sus: existenta acestor articole (pasagera sau nu), cu includerea lor in categoria vaga "Romanian writers" nu presupune ca trebuie sa ne apucam sa mutam articole bine argumentate in acea categorie vaga "pentru reciprocitate"; solutia ar fi ca acele articole nejustificate sa fie puse in discutie pentru stergere, iar, daca nu sunt sterse, sa fie plasate si ele, la randul lor, in categorii mai "inguste". Ideal, categoria "Romanian writers" ar trebui sa includa numai subcategorii, nu si articole. Dahn (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Gyuri Pascu[edit]
I left you this to consider. Dahn (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Ionescu01.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Ionescu01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irina Petraș, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Poantă, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Greig (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Irina Petraș may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ], [[Jean Baudrillard]], etc., but also by [[Emil Cioran]], Ion Biberi and [[Mircea Eliade]]), Petraş’s essays approach the problem of finitude from an innovative and unprejudiced perspective.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Romania[edit]
 |
--Codrin.B (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The file File:Lucian blaga.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)