User talk:Michael Romanov

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia[change source]

Hi, Michael Romanov, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy editing! --Creol(talk) 07:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
How to: edit a page • write Simple English articles
Getting Help
Administrators • Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability Citing sources • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights • Image use policy Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy

The Community
Assume good faith • Be kind Community Portal • Simple talk • TASERING Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Peer review • Cleanup
Other
Useful templates • Stubs

Linking terms[change source]

Please do not link terms to articles in other language wikis. This includes the English wikipedia. These article are not writen in Simple English and should not be used to explain terms which the reader already has problems understanding. --Creol(talk) 07:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your polite introduction of Simple English rules to me. But the fact is that the links to terms in the English Wikipedia were added by another user, not by myself. I just formatted them. Appreciating your involvement in this problem, Sincerely, --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some interwiki in that article, Stamp collector, are actually provided for another term equivalent to Philately. So, I change them for those that are truly equivalent to Stamp collector (Stamp collecting) or Philatelist. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album[change source]

Stamp album was in books category, here there is not a "phylately terminology" as in Russian WP --Penarc (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it belongs to the Philately topic, not to Books. --Michael Romanov (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pigeon mail[change source]

When Pigeon-post was invented is any thing, that shows the miniature-sheet is other "see Correo califales..." in the stamp face --Penarc (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the miniature sheet shows paloma mensajera (or homing pigeon) but not columbograma (or pigeongram) as you originally wrote. --Michael Romanov (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC) ach so --Penarc (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hepburn fiasco[change source]

It is difficult to understand this semipostal, when there is no posted image? --Penarc (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for deleting the image are slim. It does not matter that the stamp was not issued. It was prepared as a part of official issue by Deutsche Post and, therefore, is not a private work to be covered by copyright regulations. --Michael Romanov (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had see you validated your statement here formerly posted (when transferred to discussion page) thank a lot--Penarc (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, my voice against the image deletion did not help... --Michael Romanov (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niemals mehr, aber ein Stimme geht laut (but so a cry is many times enough¡) --Penarc (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[change source]

Maybe you can im prove my stub on maps on stamps, requested for deletion --Penarc (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left my opinion on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Maps on stamps. Sorry for a delayed response. --Michael Romanov (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is O.K there --Penarc (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

label[change source]

I saw you delete my Himmler, as you know i load there to illustrate label in the sense of propaganda-label --Penarc (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda labels are a different category: they belong to cinderellas and deserve a separate article or even two article similar to ru:Пропагандистская филателия‎ and ru:Военно-пропагандистская филателия. --Michael Romanov (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

semi-postal[change source]

Much better, thank a lot your help --Penarc (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Philatelist[change source]

We bumped heads on changing Soviet Philatelist. I was patrolling the article and doing a minor edit linking the word journal, which apparently you were doing also. I discovered it linked to something like diary, which wasn't correct, so I was sidetracked momentarily to transwiki a dab page for Journal and a stub for Academic journal. The latter is what I linked to journal. Then I found it was linked to Journal (dab). I changed it back and mentioned in the change summary " chgd link to article, cannot link to dab". Afterward I realized you may already know this and it was me changing those pages may have caused the link error. So I thought I'd explain the comment. Also, I don't know the journal Soviet Philatelist, but I assume it's an academic journal. If not, then we need to come up with the type it actually is (e.g. Scientific journal).

While I have your attention, I see you also use explanatory footnotes and separate them from source citations into a Notes section. I don't know if the templates you're using allow you to add a source citation to an explanatory footnote. I generally use the {{efn| explanatory footnote text. }} template (Template:Efn). I can add a source citation for the footnote inside the efn template. Then in the Notes section I add the {{notelist}} template (Template:Notelist). Here is an example article on enwiki using this technique: en: Logic Theorist. If you already knew this, then disregard. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for this edit overlapping. :) And that is a very helpful suggestion of yours about Template:Efn, etc. Indeed, I was heavily puzzled how it's possible to to make a Notes section because I was unable to find any suitable help page in Simple Wikipedia. Now I know that I can use {{efn}} and {{notelist}}. Thanks a lot! This is really, really useful. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interleaved reply: Here is another example: Battle of Atlanta. It's a simplewiki article that has explanatory footnotes with source citations. I'm glad you found this useful. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks! What is especially useful, there is a popping-up note, when one put cursor over note superscript label. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to Soviet Philatelist, I would call it a specialized magazine, i.e. something between (in the middle of) a usual hobbyist magazine and an academic journal. I doubt this magazine/journal gradation could be reflected in Wikipedia. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Around here we're used to pounding square pegs in round holes. Let's just leave it at Scientific journal and call it close enough. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles[change source]

From patrolling your articles, I see you are adapting to Simple English Wikipedia nicely. The articles are good and need little editing. You may want to ask for Patroller rights. User rights works just a bit differently here than at enwiki. At simplewiki, patroller rights mean any pages you create are automatically marked patrolled and do not need another patroller to review them. In my opinion yours don't. Also, should you want to, patrollers can patrol pages on the New pages list, review them and mark them patrolled. Patrollers (including administrators who automatically have patroller rights) see new pages highlighted in yellow on that list while normal editors don't. Once a patroller marks a page patrolled, it is no longer highlighted. You can apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Patroller. Give it some thought. Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for encouraging me in my simplewiki editing! I requested the patroller rights. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patroller[change source]

Just wanted to let you know that I've added the patroller bit to your account. Your articles will now be automatically patrolled (marked as checked) and you will be able to mark other pages as patrolled! --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Best regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck.

Since they've just given you the patroller flag, I just marked two recent articles of yours as patrolled. One was Samuil Blekhman, while the other had to do with Ukrainian excise stamps. But ...

You could copy the Blekhman article exactly as it is to enwiki. It's a nice piece of work. But for this wiki I also tagged it as needing to be simplified. The language there is actually fairly complicated for simplewiki.
I didn't add a template, but the article on Ukrainian excise stamps was also a little complicated, and I wonder whether it is really notable enough for this wiki.

StevenJ81 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for valuable suggestions. I will follow them. In parallel to articles on Russian philately, I plan to create a series of articles on philately of Ukraine. Also, there will be other articles on revenue/excise stamps. So, the article on Ukrainian excise stamps will be a part of those. Appreciating your wiki cooperation, --Michael Romanov (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome.

For starters, philately isn't a simple word. So I created a definition entry in Simple English Wiktionary to help you along. If you actually use that word in an article, enter it as [[wikt:philately|]] so that you show a link to the definition in the dictionary. You may choose to create entries there for the related words (philatelic, etc.). On the whole, it is better if you avoid words like that entirely (instead, "stamp collecting"). But sometimes it gets tedious to write like that, so you do have an option to go to the dictionary if you need to. Good luck, Tsar of all Russias, etc. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:)). Thanks, Steve. --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I transferred Samuil Blekhman to enwiki and simplified it here. Please have a look at it and tell me if we can now remove the {{simplify|date=May 2015}} tag. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been awfully busy, haven't you? It's really impressive!

This article is pretty close, I think. Here are a few thoughts:

You can put the Russian version of the name back in the body text. That's legitimate and appropriate at Wikipedia.
For teaching vocabulary, your first use of philatelist, with a link, is fine. But I think I'd really mostly stick with other terminology in the body text:
"... was a known philatelist (stamp collector)."

"... wrote many [not, a number of ] notable books and articles about stamps and stamp collecting." (And so forth...)
I'd add links for publish, exhibition, cataloging and, in the infobox, posthumous. (Note: the links I just created for publish and exhibition go to Wikipedia, the other two to Wiktionary.)
I'd probably change the sentence on the award to something like: 'This work won a major award at the World Stamp Exhibition "PRAGA 1962".' (Note the link to Prague there.) The fact that the award was a silver plaquette, or that it might have been significant as "The Silver Plaquette", is not so relevant here. It wouldn't be meaningful to most people. The fact that it was a major award would be. (And you can avoid the problem of defining plaquette.)

Those things would let the article pass the simplicity test, at least in my view.

Finally, be a little careful with some of your articles on philatelic terms, which I saw from links in the "stamp collector" article. Gutter (philately) is pretty close to being only a dictionary definition ("dicdef"), and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you eventually flesh it out a little, you'll be fine.

Thanks for the great work! StevenJ81 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep me busy, Steve. :) Thank you so much for your encouragement and valuable comments and suggestions. Let me do some homework, and I will be back. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing great.

By the way: in my view, if you do all of the above to that article, you can go ahead and boldly remove the simplify template yourself. (If you don't want to be that bold, cite my approval here as authorization.) I mention this because there is a major Jewish holiday this weekend. So instead of being offline between sundown tonight and sundown tomorrow US Eastern, I'm offline all the way until Monday night. I don't want you to have to wait that long. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gutter (philately) was created by a Spanish-speaking colleague from Chile, with a scarce knowledge of English. I just tried to rectify it a bit. However, you are right, and the article should be expanded. I will look into it when I have time.

I made all corrections in Samuil Blekhman following your suggestions and removed the template. Thank you. And happy holiday! Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]