A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Teutonia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Was a redirect to Germany, however I have no idea what Teutonia got to do with Germany. Another editor blanked the page before.
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.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weird etymology
Where did you get this weird etymology from? It doesn't appear in any revision of the article you give as a source. Ostrów is actually a cognate of English stream, by the way. · Naivecynic · 18:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have come back to resume pretty much the same behaviour that got you in trouble two years ago: edit-warring on the same set of articles (Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia etc.); making contentious edits about Polish-German naming issues, canvassing [1], "Germanising" names, some of them wrongly ([2]) and others. I am giving you warning under the terms of the WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions Arbcom case that you may be topic-banned from the relevant articles if disruption should continue. Fut.Perf.☼07:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your vandalisms, again
You can not delete Polish sources. You not understand the Polish language? Ask someone to translate.
I add also english sources, you also deletes english sources. You've done vandalism.
For compromise: I add template {Sources} for eventually add English sources. If there are no (English) sources, apply template {Sources}. I think this is logical.
Please read Larger Urban Zones and see it sources. Bad sources: Eurostat - Urban Audit.org. Explain it here: Talk:Larger Urban Zones. If an error is it going to the source, article Larger Urban Zones is first sources. If Urban Audit.org is not Eurostat, first explain in discussion of Larger Urban Zones. Explain the first there, you letter come here.
MAUS is very many new text, not copy of Katowice. You do not have the right to remove anything. Removing half of the article is vandalism. I will always revert your wandalisms. Always! LUCPOL (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, R9! This is a courtesy notice to let you know that I moved "Grigoriev" back to Grigoryev again. This is per WP:RUS#People, item 9, dealing specifically with the titles of disambiguation and name pages. The "conventional name" clause you quoted applies to the titles of actual articles, not aggregators like dabs and name pages. Please let me know if you have further concerns, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:19, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
I've also moved back Dmitriyev. Judging by your edit summary, you, for some reason, perceive the i-spelling as "correct". I just want to point out that there is no single correct version, because any given Russian word can be romanized in many different ways, all of which would be correct. In fact, one of the main reasons why we have WP:RUS at all is to help us consistently standardize on one romanization instead of having to randomly choose among available alternatives. Hope this clarifies the situation. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:37, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow, the problem seems to be even broader than these two! I am sorry, but I'll be reverting all your reverts back. Please study WP:RUS carefully. It does not help to declare a name "conventional" without providing sources backing up that claim {see bullet 3 under Clarifications in WP:RUS). In absence of such sources, we use the default romanization. The whole point of that guideline is to set a standard and to prevent people moving articles back and forth to romanizations they personally perceive to be the best. Nothing personal, hope you understand. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:50, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Hi, R9! You know, it's great that you cite WP:RUS like that—it shows that you've read at least part of it. Unfortunately, you are not citing all relevant parts, nor, with all due respect, you seem to understand what the intent of this guideline is. I am not being sarcastic saying this, by the way; it's just that most people using the "English usage" card don't quite get what the guideline is about either.
Take "People", for example. You've cited items 1 through 3, but missed the (rather important) portion at the top of that section where it says that when spelling is selected based on one of these criteria, it must be documented on the article's talk page (emphasis mine). You have not done so with any of your moves, and, to quote WP:RUS again, in absence of verifiable documentation, romanization produced by the WP:RUS guideline must be used (meaning "use the romanization table at the bottom of the guideline). Now, if you took time to provide the said documents (or, better yet, add cites to the article so both the content and the choice of spelling are referenced), do you think I'd have any reason to object? I do a brief research on each and every single article I think should be moved per WP:RUS, and when there is indeed an apparent variant predominantly used in English, I use that. All in all, I stand by my move decisions. In my judgement, a WP:RM was unnecessary because the moves were done in full compliance with WP:RUS, it's as simple as that. One does not file for a WP:RM every time a guideline is misapplied; one simply fixes the problem.
Now, "Places". Let me quote the same passage back to you, but emphasizing a different portion of it: a conventional name of a place is the name listed in major English dictionaries and should be preferred over romanization at all times. Granted, we don't supply a list of said "major dictionaries" on talk pages of articles like Moscow or Saint Petersburg, but then anybody with half a brain can easily verify those two. Not the case for tiny places like Keperveyem—that one is not listed in any dictionaries (which means it simply does not have a "conventional English name"—a case with 99% of Russian places, by the way), and the "industry standard" for romanization of such Russian toponyms is BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian (endorsed by both the US and UK, and I believe by the English-speaking countries of the Commonwealth as well) around which, I should add, WP:RUS is built.
On the other hand, you may have a point with the islands in Franz Josef Land. A good number of them do indeed have English names. However, in my experience, those names are being phased out in favor of BGN/PCGN variants. In other words, they are becoming obsolete (which is no wonder as the islands have been in Russian jurisdiction for quite some while). Case in point: two out of the three atlases I checked show Yeva-Liv Island as "Ostrov Yeva-Liv" (the third atlas did not have that island marked). All three atlases use BGN/PCGN. "Eva Island" is more common in historical and older literature. All this makes me think that straight romanization is a better choice here because that's where the usage is shifting to. In addition, giving a small number of sources dealing specifically with this island, I would say that either "Yeva-Liv" or "Eva" enjoy very few mentions at all, so it's safer to err on the side of standardization and use "Yeva-Liv".
Anyway, the bottom line is that one cannot pick a spelling from a random text that happens to use English words and claim that spelling to be the correct English usage (although, of course, it may happen to be it). There is always a big picture that needs to be considered, and that big picture is precisely what WP:RUS is all about. Please let me know if anything in my explanation above is unclear to you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:27, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
Hi! What are your sources for the two music videos you inserted into the discography's music video table? We need to know these references to keep "Come Together" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" in the listing. Please respond either here on this page, or on my talk page. Thank you very much! Best, --Discographer (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
