User talk:TheSeinfeld

Â and Î

The two spelling rules for Romanian are just as legitimate at Wikipedia. Switching an article from one spelling to the other is just as bad in Romanian as it is to replace British spellings with American spellings (or the other way round) in English. At the Romanian Wikipedia we have a policy concerning this, see ro:Wikipedia:Versiuni de limbă română. Only in the proces of significantly developing an article (such as doubling its length) is an editor allowed to switch to the other spelling. Also, mixing the spelling rules in one article is not okay. — AdiJapan ☎ 07:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted the wrong part of the policy, that is, the part referring to situations where one and only one spelling must be used, such as in article titles and category names. Inside articles that rule does not apply.

Let me tell you that the Romanian Academy is not God. It may have law-like effects in schools and other places but not at Wikipedia, which has a NPOV policy. There is a long list of linguists who oppose the new spelling rules on solid scientific grounds, while those who support the new spelling have no arguments other that "let's wipe out all Communist stuff" (which by the way is wrongly applied here -- the spelling reform was not a Communist idea). Many publications use the "old" spelling and that Romanian is not only spoken in Romania, but also in the Republic of Moldova, where this spelling is official. Wikipedia is not the place to give advantage to one or the other.

Also, your assertion that in the case of the List of Dacian words the new spelling would be "more accurate to the original Dacic forms" is absurd. Nobody knows if those Romanian words really have a Dacian origin, and even if they do, we don't know what those words sounded like, or if they were ever written in any form. — AdiJapan ☎ 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what flaw you found in my logic, but I really appreciate your will to come to an agreement. Thanks. — AdiJapan ☎ 10:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fugumugu

The article Fugumugu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources given in over a year, nor any substantial improvements made; all of my attempts to find reliable sources to verify the article have failed, as Google and other search engines return no relevant hits. Proposing deletion per Wikipedia's policy regarding verifiability, which states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]