User talk:Lotygolas Ozols

Welcome!

Hello, Lotygolas Ozols, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Deletion of dead links
Please do not delete dead external links from Wikipedia artlcles, as you did in National Mall. See: WP:LINKROT. Either retrieve the link using an internet archive service such as the Wayback Machine or add a dead link tag. Corker1 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Lake Peipsi-Pikhva
As I understand, outsiders normally do not distinguish the substructure and call the whole 3-part system as Peipus. I see 3 easy ways to write about individual lakes: (i) start an article in your personal sandbox (like User:Lotygolas Ozols\Sandbox or User:Lotygolas Ozols\Lake Peipsi) and then go to (ii) or (iii); (ii) add material directly into Lake Peipus - the article is not very long; (iii) start individual articles on Lake Peipsi (erasing the redirect) and Lake Pihkva. Only you can see which way is better - surely one can spend many pages on every feature in a lake, but if they are one-sentence-long, they'll have to be merged into the parent article. If you don't know yet, I would start with (i). I'll help wherever I can. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I am a practical person. There are two issues: (i) if you want to write about individual parts, you can do that under the current name, they accommodate Peipsi and Pikhva inside, renaming can be done any time after a consensus is reached; (ii) if you want to restore the Peipsi-Pikhva name (which I did and would support), refocus the discussion on the talk. Try to understand the problem: the Google books ratio for the use of "Peipsi-Pikhva"/"Peipus" is roughly 1,500/80,000, and neither "Peipus-Pskov" nor "Peipus-Pihkva" is used much. Thus Britannica aside, you'll need to show what those 80k refs mean by Peipus. And if you prove they mean exactly the Peipsi part, how would you call the whole lake then? Materialscientist (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that we should look more at the geographical authorities than the total number of book cites. I think Peipsi-Pikhva is a better name, and we can restore it in a new discussion at a talk page (I've put it in my to-do-list). I was just overwhelmed by other tasks, and am not keen to fight for names - see what happens at talk:Kolkata :-). Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)