User talk:Tomakiv

ancestral sin

I'm proposing this for deletion, because there is already a good series of much more extensive articles on original sin and related topics. I urge you to improve them further. DGG (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Tomakiv, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Ukraine-related themes, you may want to check out the Ukraine Portal, particularly the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board. The New article announcements board is probably the most important and the most attended one. Please don't forget to announce there the new articles you create. Adding both boards to your watchlist is probably a good idea.

Finally, in case you are interested, similar boards exist at Russia portal as many editors contribute to topics related to both countries. The respective boards there are: Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. Of course there are also many other portals at Wikipedia or you may just get right into editing.

Again, welcome! —dima /talk/ 18:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silrada

Regarding this: "selsoviet" is an English loanword, listed in major (unabridged) English dictionaries; "silrada" is not. Those few mentions of "silrada" google finds aren't indicative of use in English, they are merely a transliteration of the Ukrainian word. It should also be mentioned that 62 hits hardly consitute "wide" use—some misspellings can get more hits than that! With that in mind, I'd appreciate it if you reverted your latest change. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silrada is widely used in English for Ukrainian village units. Google broughts 62 findings. Term selsoviet is not used in Ukraine since USSR crush. Instead was established new Silrada system. This name must be indicated in Wikipedia.--Tomakiv 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one argues that "сiльрада" is not a valid term; it is. "Silrada", however, is merely a romanization of the term, but, unlike "selsov(i)et", which is included into major English dictionaries, it is not an English loanword and hence is not a valid alternative. An English-language academic work dealing with Ukrainian administrative units might occasionally romanize "сiльрада" as "silrada", but there would always be an explanation of what a "silrada" actually is (a rural council). A similar English-language academic work dealing with Soviet/Russian administrative units might still provide an explanation of what a "selsoviet" is, but in absence of such an explanation an interested reader can look this word up in a dictionary.

All in all, "silrada" is defined either as "rural council", or "a Ukrainian administrative unit similar to a selsoviet". In the selsoviet article it is useful to indicate that "selsoviet/сельсовет" in Ukrainian is "сiльрада", but it would be misleading to bold the "silrada" romanization as it is not an equal alternative. There is no reason why romanization of the Ukrainian term should be shown in bold, just as there is no reason to separate the word "selsoviet" in the languages of other thirteen former Soviet republics. Just because a word is occasionally used in English texts (and, again, 62 hits is not indicative of "wide usage") does not automatically make it an English word.

Hopefully my reasoning is clear. I'll thus unbold "silrada" and move it inside the parantheses italicizing it as a romanization of the Ukrainian term. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul W Esposito

The article Paul W Esposito has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication in the article that Mr. Esposito is notable, see WP:BIO. Also, the article is not supported by any independent sources -- just by links to Mr. Esposito's own pages. If you can find independent sources demonstrating Mr. Esposito's notability, let me know. NawlinWiki 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, there are "plenty sources" about him, surely you can cite them. NawlinWiki 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it is about independent sources -- a fundamental Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. You still haven't provided any. NawlinWiki 13:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New wikiproject

I started the Anthroponymy WikiProject. It's a long word but it basically means the study of human names. Since you have showed some interest in name articles, I thought you might be interested in this. Remember 20:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon climate data

Hi, sorry about the unexplained deletion of your material. It was my first use of the rollback tool, and I did not realize it would give no opportunity for an edit summary. However, as I explained on Talk:Oregon, you added uncited data to a table that is otherwise attributed to a source. If you can provide a reliable source for the data, that would be excellent; if not, I don't think the addition should stand. Of course, I'm happy to hear from a few other regular editors of the page before reverting again. -Pete (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red links and linking in general

As you have a penchant for linking things, please read WP:REDLINK where:

Red links should not be created for topics that will never have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right) or every chapter in a book. See WP:NOTE for what is notable.

Thus many of the items you continue to link will not have articles. Small streams are rarely notable, again see WP:NOTE. Then if you are going to link to ones that you think might garner an article at some point, make sure the links point to the correct article and not some other geographical feature in some other state or to a disambiguation page. I would suggest using the "show preview" button to see what articles exist, and then the "open in new tab/new window" feature by right clicking on the article link to see if the wikilink directs to the correct article. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

I linked them to write articles.--Tomakiv (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for starting to use edit summaries. Second, unless the creeks are notable (see WP:NOTE) they will be deleted. Read through the notability guidelines before writing, otherwise if they fail the guidelines you will have wasted your energy. Rock Creek is likely notable. But regarding that on the DISAM page, there is more than one Rock Creek in Oregon, that's why you need the county in there or the tributary, but not the state. And regarding the edit summary for that edit, no, they are not disam'd by state, some are by the river tributary. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the Washington Co. creeks are significant. Along them live almost 600000 people. For Rock Creek, it is better to link it to the main river as it is for all Rock Creeks.--Tomakiv (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, you obviously did not read WP:NOTE, where notablity is confered through coverage in WP:RS, not by how many people live near it. Second, I already said it was likely notable. Third, 600,000? No, not even. there are less than 500,000 in the county, and most do not live in its drainage area. Maybe 200,000, but that would be pushing it, Please do not make up numbers, cite them from WP:RS. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is not an article about Wa. Co. I forgot that number and had the wrong one remembered. So do not blame that I make numbers. As far as know all Wa. co. is within Tualatin River drainage. When living in Wa. Co. people are always meet these creeks in everyday life. Parks, watersheds, bridges, streets near them are many places where people getting to know them and curious about them.--Tomakiv (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for about the third time, read WP:NOTE. Then separate the real world from Wikipedia. Just because people come across it in everyday life does not mean it is notable. Also see WP:NOT. I used to play in Rock Creek when I lived across the street from it as a kid. But that doesn't make it notable. People go through the intersection of 185th and Cornell all day long, but that does not make it notable for Wikipedia. People shop at the Safeway in Tanasbourne within the drainage area everyday too, but again that store is not notable. Next, as to the almost complete overlap of the Tualatin's drainage basin and the county area, what does that have to do with Rock Creek? Rock Creek's drainage area is not the same as the river's. On the other hand if you are not following the conversation here, the Tualatin River is notable, that's why it has had an article for quite some time. The issue is the notability of all the creeks that drain into it. That's why I wrote above: "Small streams are rarely notable" and not "hey we are going to delete the Tualatin River article!" Articles like the mountains and Gales Greek that you have created are likely to be deleted unless you provide Wikipedia defined reliable sources such as magazines, books, or newspapers. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second time I advise you do not come here and to blame me. I red WP:NOTE. I was talking about Tualatin River Creeks if you followed. The sources are always supplied in my articles, at least I try to do so. For now I want to finish this conversation with you.--Tomakiv (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the first time you asked, the first time you asked me to simply: "do not blame that I make numbers" not to not come here and blame you. Please note, I am not blaming you, I'm trying to inform you of how things work, as others above have done. Personally when a variety of people come and tell me I'm doing something wrong, I tend to stop and ask myself, hmmm, maybe I am doing something wrong. I don't keep trying to do the same thing. Notice, above you already had one article deleted, which means all the time spent on it was a waste of your time. Do you want to continue wasting your time here so that any work you do is simply deleted like that? I'd love it if someone would write more articles about Washington County and the Tualatin River, but only if they meet notability guidelines.

As to other items, if you read notability and throughly understood it, why did you continue with arguments such as "When living in Wa. Co. people are always meet these creeks in everyday life. Parks, watersheds, bridges, streets near them are many places where people getting to know them and curious about them." That shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ::::::::As Tualatin River Creeks, as group they would be notable, but that's as part of the Tualatin River, which is where they are already covered. Individually, most are not notable. Each creek is examined individually, as notability is not inherited. But feel free to keep making them, we'll just take them to WP:AFD if they are not notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to educate me. If we're taking it about my personal work on Wikipedia, I look for information here and when I can not find it I look for it in different sites and add here. That article you are talking was about Bible translator. I spent some time to write that. But that intresting for me how deep you are going to know about me, articles that I wrote and what somebody said to me. We are not going to discuss all of this. If I have red about notability and still want to write about creeks? As I mentioned earlier I and others need such information. I am not going to write articles about creeks that are not mentioned somewhere. I hope this conversation is over. I would rather write something than to waste time discussing here obvious things. Good night.--Tomakiv (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Round Top (Oregon)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Round Top (Oregon), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round Top (Oregon). Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

good job on the pierce county template. one thing though, it'd be really good if you could use the edit summary box everytime you edit an article so that other editors know what and why you changed. cheers! Murderbike (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KNR

Here are the two refrences which you deleted: 23 февраля 1919 г. на заседании Законодательной Рады был утвержден 3-х полосный сине-малиново-зеленый флаг Кубани, исполнен краевой гимн "Ты, Кубань, ты - наша Родина". Whilst this one states: В период гражданской войны она была официальным гимном Кубанской рады.[1] Any more questions? --Kuban Cossack 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried that. There are 404 page. That is what your link look like.--Tomakiv (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this URL http://kraj-kuban.by.ru/economy-3.htm and navigate to the Гимн Кубани at the top. --Kuban Cossack 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bazooka Cafe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bazooka Cafe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bazooka Cafe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bazooka cafe.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bazooka cafe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pick Me, Honey!

The article Pick Me, Honey! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ongoing notability concerns since 2010. Google turns up no evidence of notability.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]