User talk:Ufim

Post here your message to Ufim.

Proposed deletion of Optical axis (disambiguation)


The article Optical axis (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No need for a dab page. Only two distinct meanings; WP:MOSDAB recommends using dablinks instead in this case.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Srleffler (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with deletion. Ufim (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. You could speed up the process by adding the tag " " at the top of the article. Since you created it and there haven't been any other significant contributions, you have standing to request "speedy" deletion. Otherwise, deletion will take about a week.--Srleffler (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Common People/Common people
Hi. It's fine to just "be bold" on Wikipedia, but if you had asked on article talk pages before moving Common People, other editors might have explained why it's probably a bad idea.


 * it's confused over 50 incoming links that were to the song
 * there's no reason for a phrase such as "Common people" to be capitalised as "Common People" (in fact it shouldn't be), and the two articles could co-exist with hatnotes to cross-reference them. See Naming conventions (capitalization)
 * the term "common people" is not well-defined in English; it usually has overtones of class but is basically just a conjunction of an adjective (that can be applied to many objects with a potential meaning of class) and a noun; it can also mean the people as a whole "a common people with a common destiny". For example, the article on socialist William Morris doesn't refer to "common people" (only "common life"), and even when it did the meaning isn't quite what you seem to want.  Basically, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Perhaps the article "People" gives the wrong impression, but that's what most of the uses in your edit refer to.  (See also the disambiguation page Class war for capitalisation examples.)
 * There are already articles for phrases with clearer meaning, such as lumpenproletariat, hoi polloi, plebs, commoners. Surprisingly there doesn't seem to be for the history of the concept demos.
 * Certainly the song is not the prior meaning, but if you do a web search for "common people" you will find the song is the most common usage online.
 * the term "commons" does not refer to a group of people as claimed in the lead you wrote, and "rabble" usually has class connotations but is also not synonymous.

If you can provide references where the term is used in English in a defined way, then I would support the article creation, but not under the current title which wrongly capitalises the second word. --Cedderstk 10:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with changing from Common People to Common people. However, if I try to move it, an error message arises.
 * I think there should be an article about the entity (non-elite majority of the population). The articles hoi polloi, plebs, commoners are dictionary articles about words or idioms now. The meaning of hoi polloi is identical to common people, but I am afraid I can spoil the hoi polloi article by merging. If you merge these two articles to an encyclopedia artice, I agree. Ufim (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Coup of June 1907
I fail to understand your question. I tagged the sentence as unreferenced. If you don't understand what the sentence says then it has much worse problems than I thought. (To answer your qustion without bitching, all what you listed (even "something else") requires sourcing.) By the way, the whole article thoroughly lacks citiations since 2009. And by further way, your external links are primary sources, which is far from enough for wikipedia. Please see the rules about sources to be cited in wikipedia. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Streich
Please do not add nonsense to articles. Just because something was said on the internet doesn't make it true or worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Especially, do not use Russian language news blogs in order to substantiate local stories about Switzerland. See also Daniel Streich. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Krashlandon (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Roger (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Town
Hi there! Thanks for your comment, but I think we are talking about completely different things here. I don't at all disagree with the points you mentioned on my talk page&mdash;they are entirely correct. The problem is that you are talking about how Russians translate the English word "town", while the article in question deals with the concept of a town, and the "Russia" section deals with the concept of a town in Russia. The concept is, of course, described by the Russian word "город", which in turn can be translated as either "city" or "town", which is what the statement in question is about. Perhaps the sentence should be revised to make its meaning more clear, but it is most certainly neither wrong nor obsolete.

The "factual errors" I was referring to in my edit summary are with regards to the criteria an inhabited locality needs to meet in order to qualify for the city/town status. In your revision, you state that in Russia, a settlement can become city (gorod) only if it has more than 12000 inhabitants and the occupation of no less than 85% of inhabitants must be other than agriculture. That was true in the Soviet times, but is no longer the case after the adoption of the 1993 Constitution. Currently, the criteria are set by each federal subject individually; there is no federal regulation to that effect. While it is true that many federal subjects retained the Soviet set of criteria in some form, others did in fact diverge from it (in Khabarovsk Krai, for example, the 12,000 population limit is retained for the towns of district significance, but the limit for the towns of krai significance is 50,000, and the agricultural aspect is no longer numerically defined, while in Dagestan there is no district/republican aspect and the threshold is 50,000 for all cities/town; the agricultural aspect is also not explicitly defined).

Hope this clarifies the rationale behind my edit. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2011; 13:41 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.Ufim (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Syllabus (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Syllabus (disambiguation) 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 Articles for deletion/Syllabus (disambiguation) 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 notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2014 (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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Windows 10 DPI
How it is right now is mainly original research and how-to material. Wikipedia is not a bug tracker, and generally only major controversies are considered to be signifigant enough for coverage. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited G, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fragile ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/G check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/G?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gauss's law into Coulomb's law. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inflection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frater. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Overhead projector, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Episcope and Diascope.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)