User talk:Lupishor

Lupishor, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lupishor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

18:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutsch House (March 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NBUILDING, requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lutsch House and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lutsch House, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutsch House has been accepted

Lutsch House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Lupishor! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

By the way, as an exercise to develop your Wikipedia talents, may I suggest that you work on an article that you don't have any personal connection to? Instead of Sibiu, why not try to improve, say, Montpellier. I see that its History section has no footnotes at all -- can you help improve that? And maybe find cases where the current text can be improved? --Macrakis (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Macrakis.

Thanks for the welcoming message. I have actually already done some edits on pages I have no personal connection to and I'm planning to do so in the future too, whenever I find something I can improve. My current plan is to finish the improvements I have started on the Sibiu page, after that I'll see what I will focus on. And as a side note: The Montpellier example you gave me actually does have some footnotes on its History section. :) Lupishor (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:World War II : Romania's Ion Antonescu to "Main Axis Leaders" in the infobox

Out of curiosity as to exactly what Prof Deletant's current views are on Antonescu's leadership position in WW2, I dropped him a line to ask as follows [extract from e-mail]:

I note that in "Joining Hitler's Crusade" you make the point "All of this places Romania on a par with Italy as a principal ally of Germany and not in the category of a minor Axis satellite." (p. 78). ("this", I take to be in simplistic terms, 585,000 troops, about a third of Germany's oil supplies, and the respect of Hitler.) I was wondering if you have put this view forward anywhere else, perhaps argued more fully? My interest is whether the idea challenges the accepted view of Italy as the second partner of the Axis in the European part of WW2.

I included the point made on the article discussion page about Italy initiating some strategic actions in WW2 (e.g. invasion of Greece) and the role of the Italian navy in tying down extensive British naval resource, with possible implications for naval activity in the Far East.

The answer I got is as follows [extract from e-mail]:

Thank you for your email. My intention in highlighting Romania's role as a partner of Nazi Germany was to place more significance than is usually given to the former's contribution to Hitler's designs. It was not to diminish the greater importance of Italy which you rightly underline in your comments. Perhaps I should have said that 'this places Romania in the same league as Italy....' and not equate her role with that of Italy. Best wishes,...

So, this slight restating of Prof Deletant's position seems to be a better fit with the understanding that I and others have of the literature. What he is looking for is a raised understanding of the role of Rommania in WW2, not a claim of equal importance with Italy. Since this restatement will no doubt have been made formally and informally to other historians in the academic community, this explains why we have not seen other academic historians make the original, unmodified point as in Joining Hitler's Crusade.

Obviously, any point about private correspondence not being a WP:RS is entirely correct. I was simply trying to understand the position that we could see from sources.

I am making this point here on your talk page, as I feel it is not right to quote private correspondence on a (more visible) article talk page. However, @Nick-D: and @Paul Siebert: may be interested to see this.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: Thank you for contacting him. Well, then I guess the Deletant source falls apart from sources backing up my intention to add Romania. Since Axworthy alone is obviously not enough to make my intention a possibility, I guess that for now, Romania can't be added, unless others join the discussion and provide more material supporting my claim. But thanks very much for taking this matter seriously. :)

Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: I've contacted Mr Deletant myself and asked what he thinks of Romania's importance compared to that of Italy and whether he thinks Antonescu was one of the main Axis leaders. Here's his answer (extract from email):

In terms of the WW2 theatres in which Italy and Romania fought, the manpower they each deployed, the land, sea and air forces they committed, I regard Italy to have been a more significant ally of Nazi Germany. My view is not in any way designed to play down the significance of Romania's role as an ally of Nazi Germany.
We could indeed regard Romania as the second Axis power in the European theatre after the withdrawal of Italy from the war.
Antonescu was one of the principal Axis leaders. Hitler held him in great respect since he had served as a strategist with the rank of colonel in WW1 in the Romanian army (Hitler was a corporal). Best wishes,[...]

So, according to him, Antonescu could, indeed, be added to the "Main Axis Leaders" section. He also considers Romania Europe's second Axis member after Italy's surrender. I will send him another email to ask whether he thinks these views should also be accepted by other historians. Lupishor (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Brașov § Affiliations box

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brașov § Affiliations box. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back and yes, things do seem much more relaxed all of a sudden. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mareșal (tank destroyer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TACAM. 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) 06:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]