User talk:Dionysos1~enwiki

New message

Welcome!

Dionysos1

AfD:Names of European cities in different languages

I notice you've contributed in the past to Names of European cities in different languages. There is a proposal to delete this article and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages might intersted you. AjaxSmack 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Dionysos1 08:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Leuven-Louvain

I suppose my edit was erroneous, but I still think your approach calling it "Leuven before 1968" is incorrect. It is like changing the Russian name of a Russian chess player who lived and died in Latvia before 1989 into the now legal Latvian form of his name, although he never called himself that way and is on all tournament sheets under his Russian name. We need "Leuven(Louvain)" (since "Leuven/Louvain" does not work). By the way, have a look at the people who are now mentioned as alumni of Leuven. We have people there who were quite dead in 1968. Jaak Gabriëls and Herman de Coninck are not alumni of Leuven either (although the first one may think so, for obvious reasons). Géza Vermes is not, Frans Boenders is dubious and so on.

I also think that NOT providing a link from "before 1968" to Louvain, but providing one for Leuven, is POV. By the way, if you had been so careful, you may have noticed that Vesalius was mentioned under Louvain... Thanks for your attention.--Pan Gerwazy 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal view in editing

I have noticed that you are mass-editing several articles on Belgian people. In your editing you bias towards emphasizing the alignment with you personal views on Belgium and Flanders. Wikipedia is not meant to express political opinions in articles on writers and universities by categorizing. Pvosta 11:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to cut up categories. If you hadn't noticed, all categories about Flemish (...) are part of the Belgian ones. Some categories are more relevant if they are cut up. There is no such thing as a "Belgian literature", but indeed a "Dutch-language literature", shared more with the Netherlands than with French-speaking Belgians. There is nothing POV in categorizing further into Flemish or French-speaking writers. Universities are a regional matter, so it's logical to categorize them separately, though they all remain "Belgian writers" (and are in subcategory of that category), and Flemish universities are still Belgian ones, but grouped together. --Dionysos1 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then be consistent and edit articles of this kind, but which refer to Wallonia, in the same way.Pvosta 12:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am being consistent: I group Dutch-speaking Belgian things together. Later I, or somebody else, can still create a second category for Franco-Belgians (which is different form Walloon), like I already did with Belgian poets in French, which should indeed better be named Franco-Belgian poets or so. I understand your concern, but Flemish is just the shorter equivalent for "Dutch-language Belgian". And if I kick people out of the category "Belgian people" I only do that if I categorize them in a more specialised category. --Dionysos1 12:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you finish what you have started. As you have taken the initative to create this subcategory for "Flemish", do the same for "Wallonia". Also be consistent in the text of all the articles you edit as in "Flemish-Belgian" and "Walloon-Belgian". Otherwise you do not treat everyone equal and create a bias in the categories. You add a level of complexity, which is diffcult to manage. How are you going to deal with the Universities VUB and ULB? What about the University of Ghent: Latin, French, Dutch (WW I), The Nolf-University and finally The Dutch RUG (since 1930) ? We write those articles for the entire world, not just for a few belgians who happen to read english. Pvosta 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:See how I emptied the category "Belgian writer" into two, just to give you an impression. --Dionysos1 12:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing wrong with what I do. You can not oblige me to change EVERY article about Belgians now. It is not redundant information specifying the language adherence of somebody. Other articles do not HAVE to be changed in the same manner, since they are not WRONG as they are now. Belgians are Belgians, and if it is specified somebody is Flemish, alright than. Should I delete every specification about whether somebody is Flemish or Wallonian, just because it is not specified in every article? That's ridiculous. En plus, wikipedia is a free country. I did not "invent" to mention somebody was Flemish, I just added that in more articles - just like you insist. And indeed, the ULB and VUB should be cut up, but not because I cut up UCL and KUL, just because they are two different universities. You're free to cooperate instead of discouraging every attempt to make things more correct. Give me one good reason why UCL and KUL alumni shouldn't be categorized seperately apart from the fact that it's difficult to find a name for the common category. Wikipedia is a long time project, never finished, and therefore, everybody cooperates. I am sure somebody will split ULB from VUB, it is not my obligation to do that. In fact, nothing is obligatory. As long as I am not writing anything incorrect (well the 1968 is indeed maybe not entirely correct but that's being thought about right now), I may do whatever I want. --Dionysos1 09:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

When you edit on Wikipedia, be correct and not sloppy. Just take a look yourself at several articles and categories you touched.Pvosta 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Leuven

Pvosta is right, of course. You put Vesalius in the right cat, but "forgot" the other problems I mentioned. Some of those problems (Géza Vermes for instance ) were entirely your doing, so you should have put them right first. You actually got rid of the POV that existed in the links between the three categories, so there is some improvement in the categorization already. There are two reasons for me preferring "Leuven(Louvain)" to "Leuven before 1968":

• There is a problem with the date: "before 1968" means that the last Leuven(Louvain) graduations were in 1967, and Englsih speakers will gather that French graduations at the town of Leuven stopped then, but the French wiki version of the article on Louvain-la-Neuve gives 1972 as the start date (probably meaning French students were still becoming alumni at "Leuven" town in 1972.) We have a grey zone of at least one year, possibly 5 years! Until that is solved, and we have the last date for Leuven(Louvain) graduations, we should avoid mentioning the year. Which is only normal, since only on the basis of that year can you decide which category these famous Belgians belong to. If the date is 1968, as I suspect, it will at least have to be renamed to before1969 and you will have to state on the cat pages that students of the French-speaking uni were still graduating at the town of "Leuven" in 1972.
• "Before 1968" the bilingual university was known in the English-speaking world as the University of Louvain. Note that in my version "Leuven(Louvain)" that thing between brackets is English, not French. If there were bilingual universities in Ghent, Antwerp or Ostend, in my view in the English wikipedia they would be called "University of Ghent", "University of Antwerp" and "University of Ostend", without any problem. Like we have articles about Odessa and Kiev, and not about Odesa or Kyiv, because in English, that is how you write that. However, I agree that with this checkered history "University of Louvain" is unacceptable, and possibly confusing (with the Louvain-la-Neuve one). Unfortunately, Lovanium is also confusing (Congo). "Leuven(Louvain)", howver, is neutral and the most acceptable form to everybody concerned.

Note that there may even be a problem with other people invoking the right to "self-name". We already have people on the Leuven list who may only have studied in English - after 1968. I suspect that their diploma mentions both Leuven and Louvain (again, Louvain as the English name). If such people later write books or have books written about them mentioning that they are "alumnus of the Catholic University of Louvain" you will have a lot of trouble convincing the original author of the wiki article that your version "Leuven alumnus" is correct. It should be explained on the Leuven page that that is now possible.

Again, thanks for solving the major problem with the links. But do not expect me to solve all the peroblems you created on Leuven-Louvain.--Pan Gerwazy 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I may have indeed created a grey zone with the 1968 thing. However, confusion is much less now than it was before, with only one category for three different universities. Thàt was a real disaster, and I made an effort to make it better. I did not make any POV edits in that respect, but I made it more clear by putting things in bold. In the English speaking world of this day, Leuven is used to avoid confusion with Louvain-la-Neuve; the French university still calls itself "Université Catholique de Louvain", even though it is not in that city anymore. Even French speakers ask me: "tu fais tes études à Louvain ou à Leuven alors?", so even in French they're trying to avoid confusion. Someone who graduates from the KUL will have "Leuven" written on his diploma, never Louvain, so obviously you're not into it. It doesn't matter whether he studied in English or Dutch, it still is the same university. Apart from the naming of "Leuven before 1968", I don't see the problem with Géza. You're wrong with your assumption that Louvain is still the English name like Antwerp or Ostend is. See it rather like Beijing, which used to be Peking. We'll have to find a solution with the 1968 problem though. I'll think about it. The reason why I think "Leuven(Louvain)" is not an option, is because it is also very confusing: Leuven or Louvain? Which of both is it? However, "Leuven(Louvain) before X" is an option. But what should be X? Let's find out. PS, don't forget to sign your comments please. --Dionysos1 13:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For what concerns Géza, I see I miscategorized him. Thanks for your correction, but making minor mistakes is human, isn't it? --Dionysos1 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And for Ghent, the university was as a matter of fact French untill the 1930's. --Dionysos1 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have just had a look at the main articles on the "three" univesities. And I see we have a major problem, because these articles also have lists of their notable alumni. And guess what, practically all notable alumni at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven are "before1968", and even Degrelle is there. I actually put one which was wrongly at "Leuven(Louvain)" there, but getting all the wrong ones out would leave two or three only, so I will not do it. This is a major change and needs careful thinking. About the other points: are you 100% sure that Marc R. Alexander has no piece of paper with "Louvain" on it? After reading this I am quite sure that self-name will be a problem, even if after full implementation of Bologna these guys and gals should not get a piece of paper in English mentioning Ghent, Brussels or even Louvain. Google --Pan Gerwazy 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there is indeed something suspicious about the American College of Louvain alumni. They are all noted as Louvain/Leuven alumni (they already were before I cut the category up), although I think it is a separate institution (which kept "Louvain" in its name) I think they actually don't fit in either three. I agree this is a major change, but I'll have to insist it's a necessary one though. However, you're right that "Leuven alumni before 1968" needs improvement. I didn't notice that alumni list in the articles, although it can't be that difficult to put them in the right article, doesn't matter if that only leaves three: we put a redirect to the appropriate category in the article. I think another category "American College of Louvain alumni" should be created to resolve the disambiguation of the American College. Before I'll do that, what do you think? --Dionysos1 15:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What could be an option is changing "Leuven alumni" into "KULeuven alumni", "Louvain alumni" into "UCL alumni" to get rid of the location connotation and in order to use the official names. That still leaves us with "Leuven alumni before 1968". To avoid an exact year: Leuven(Louvain) pre-split alumni, with, of course, a clear explanation at the category page. I'm not changing anything yet though. --Dionysos1 15:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that. --Pan Gerwazy 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo de munt.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo de munt.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

File:IMAGE0075.JPG.JPG needs a description and new name

The image File:IMAGE0075.JPG.JPG was uploaded into the Commons back in July 2010. But you really should tell everybody what it is. ----DanTD (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Dionysos1. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dionysos1~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

12:11, 22 April 2015 (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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)