Welcome!

Hello, Elekhh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! --Darwinek (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You welcome. Reverting vandalism is important, indeed. Please, read WP:RBK. - Darwinek (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with resurrecting the project, count me in. What's in the plan? NVO (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You changed the icons at Portal:Contents/Types TOC but didn't explain why in either the editsummary or on the talkpage. Can I invite you to discuss the change at Portal talk:Contents, if you still believe it is needed? It is a very prominent page, so any changes should probably be discussed in advance. Thanks.

(I would personally agree that a few of those icons could be swapped as improvements; however, some are less clear, like History. More people should be given the opportunity to give feedback first though.). -- Quiddity (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at the GA review of Buildings and architecture of Bath. I have taken a look at Urban design and Urban structure and can see the relevance/importance in Bath, but don't really feel qualified to write a section on this. Below is a draft paragraph but I would welcome your comments or edits.

The area immediately around the Abbey in the centre of Bath provides pedestrianised areas with shops, municipal offices and public buildings. The rest of the city centre largely owes its layout to the planners of the Georgian era, who emphasised the visual impact of their broad streets and crescents of terraced houses and constructed impressive facades which could be viewed from a distance, taking into account the topography along the River Avon, placing less emphasis on the function of the buildings and the structures behinds the facades. Open spaces with grass or ornamentation such as fountains were provided at the intersections of the streets. The relationship between the roads, spaces and other features were part of a grand design with construction within a 50 year time span rather than the piecemeal design seen in many British cities. Outside of the city centre suburbs were created later, sometimes incorporating existing villages, to provide accommodation for those who worked in the city and the increasing numbers of visitors.

Is this the sort of thing you are thinking of? if so I may have problems supporting it from the references I've seen? Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the category [[Category:Wikipedia Featured Picture contributors]] to your userpage. The category is for ease of access to a list of serial FP contributors, and will not be used for spam. Thanks,   Nezzadar ☎   17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wasur National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these separate things? Architecture of Denmark would inlcude all architecture within the territory of Denmark, while Danish architecture would include all buildings by Danish architects such as the Sydney Opera House... Elekhh (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make an interesting distinction here. And, what with your interest in languages and your native Romanian as well as your architectural expertise, you certainly seem to be in an excellent position to comment.

In writing the article, I tried to cover both of the aspects to which you refer. I would however point out that in other branches of the arts, e.g. painting or music, it has been common practice to redirect in the same way. :Danish music redirects to Music of Denmark. This is no doubt because many people simply search for Danish whatever instead of Whatever of Denmark. You will also see, for example, that :American architecture redirects to Architecture of the United States. Interestingly, in the case of Romania, the author of the article has taken the opposite path: :Architecture of Romania redirects to Romanian architecture! For these reasons I suggest we should leave things the way they are for now. I look forward to any further comments you may have on the article and its coverage. Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elekhh: Kudos to you for spiffing up the Kronotsky Nature Reserve article -it was greatly appreciated.

For your consideration: This article on the proposed Japan-Korea Undersea Tunnel is of importance due to the project's large impact on both regional and world trade, as well as its potential impact on regional security –if Russia and China can convince Ponyang to allow commercial rail traffic through North Korea, that can lead to a thawing of relations along the world's most heavily armed border (N. and S. Korea). With the assistance of multi-lingual Wikipedians such as yourself, I'm encouraging the article's translation into as many languages as possible –a small stub article in a new language being highly welcomed.

The greater the number of languages that the article can be translated into, the greater the potential viewership and support for this notable proposed project which has large implications for regional and world security. Any assistance you and others can provide in these translations will be greatly appreciated. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Berbak National Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Simon Burchell (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elekhh. The picture of the Dreamcast is currently a Valued Picture nominee so can you please review it? Please respond ASAP Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berbak National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 06:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for valued picture status, File:JapaneseAmericansChildrenPledgingAllegiance1942-2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome! --Kebeta (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Lion and cub eating buffalo is deleted, FYI. upstateNYer 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Planning and Urban Research, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review -- I wasn't expecting it so quickly. Since architecture is nowhere near my expertise, I may leave those parts for someone more qualified and interested (I was much more interested in the history and the fact that it's an UNESCO WH site). But I will try to address some of the issues you raised based on my research of the tower. Regarding the fact that it is a prominent Manueline structure and incorporates other styles, I don't know how I would change that because that is exactly what the various references say. I suppose this means that it is mostly Manueline and incorporates touches of Moorish, Renaissance and neo-Manueline? I can try to state that more simply and hope someone more knowledgeable comes by and can further clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strafpeloton2 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed that you further commented on the peer review. You said now that you would suggest nominating it for a GA, but I only made a few changes from the point when you stated it was currently a "C", but will soon be a "B". Would you suggest submitting it to the architecture part for GA? because I am concerned that I do not know enough about that side of it to make suggested changes in that area. I'll check back here to get your feedback. Thanks! Strafpeloton2 (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am afraid I was lifting the bar too high when I stated the article was still C - hope this did not discourage you. I think my high expectations were influenced by the importance of the building and good availability of references. Actually class B and GA do not require all aspects to be extensively covered, however all important aspects need to be mentioned. Thus small changes can make a significant difference. I think nominating it for GA will bring more constructive critique, which can be addressed given the availability of references. Probably most appropriate would be to nominate it under the architecture section. I would be happy to assisst with further improving the article as part of the GA review process. Elekhh (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. I thought that "C" was below "B" so isn't rating it a "C" lowering the bar? And how does giving it a "C" rating make the expectations high? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am confused... what I said was that the article is clearly B now and with some work can become GA. Elekhh (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elekhh,

Actually I had missed (or glossed over) those discussions, having been away for a month. We don't generally pay a lot of regard to the comments during a nom (in terms of changing a criterion or part of a process, however they may be used as a spur to a discussion on FPC:Talk), and I wouldn't regard a single reply (on Talk) as a consensus to make the change. Nonetheless, if you want to change it back, go ahead.

Personally I don't see much point in it though - I had actually wondered why the delists were suddenly listing articles and then saw it there when I went to nominate a delist, which is why I removed it as I thought 'what's the point of me listing the articles it's in when they're irrelevant to the reason I'm giving for delisting'. :-) --jjron (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, re your suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#EV.2C_EV.2C_but_for_what.3F, I particularly like suggestion c; in terms of closing where you usually only want to list one article, you want it to be the 'highest EV' one, and that ends up being left to the closer to determine atm, sometimes from quite a long list. Would be better if the nominator was to make that decision (though of course they could be wrong). --jjron (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. Elekhh (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notifications complete" - can you please post at Wikipedia:Featured portal review/James Bond who was notified, and where, and when? Cirt (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bunaken National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]