This user is busy inreal life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Looking for faster responses or more generic help? You may receive feedback at theWikipedia:Teahouse in a more timely manner.

SCAM WARNING If anyoneasks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft,it is a scam. Please report it topaid-en-wpwikipedia.org.Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Notices,archives and other talk page banners.

Archives:Index1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 This page has archives. Topics inactive for14 days are automatically archived1 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III. I do notremove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me. This user talk page might bewatched by friendlytalk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. This user talk page often deals with similar or reoccurring topics.Please use a descriptive section title when leaving a new message. Generic titles of messages may berefactored for clarity, such as renaming the section title to a link of the topic page. Messages or requests generated by large language models or "AI chatbots" such as ChatGPT arenot considered helpful and may beremoved or collapsed. This user is willing to beslapped with a trout, should they need it. This user is a regular and doesn't mind if youtemplate him. Though he will appreciate if you expand on your reasoning should your concern not be immediately apparent.

hello, I am Antavius Weems. I noticed that you deleted my page that I wrote, suggesting that it was written by an LLM of Chat GPT. Please be assured that I am an educated person, with a firm grasp on the English language. And while it may be suspicious to you that folk are regularly utilizing LLM's, I assure you that I have or had no need for it in order to write my page. It appears that names such as Jared and Billy Bob are really accepted and published, however, ethnic names seems to receive your highest level of scrutiny. To that end, I ask that you reconsider your decision, so that I won't have to escalate the matterAntavius (talk)06:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Antavius, I think you're mistaken. Looking over your talk page history and the relevant logs on my end, I doesn't appear that I was the one who tagged anything for deletion, all I did was leave apro forma notice on your talk page advising you about the relevant policies and guidelines onautobiographies. However the deletion tagging and the actual deletion itself were done by two different editors, so from a blind guess it looks like two separate people thought the draft contained LLM-generated content. And the deletion log entry notes that communication intended for the user was present, indicating LLM usage.

I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your message, but other stuff does exist on Wikipedia, that is never an argument for the inclusion of something that doesn't belong. I also don't know if you're trying to make a threat with your last message but you should be aware of the policy we have on legal threats, seeWikipedia:No legal threats.

As for your second message, it appears to just be a copy/paste from an article talk page, so I've collapsed it here so as to not duplicate efforts. People can see it and address it on the relevant page itself.

Hope that helps clarify things for you,Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)13:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review my Afc request I saw that you edited it and I would very kindly like you to review it.Fallendoor2 (talk)00:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fallendoor2, I tend to not take reviews on request. A quick look doesn't really demonstrate notability at the threshold I think is required, but I think there is potential. I won't decline it at this time, but I'm also not sure I'd accept it either. I'll leave it in the queue for someone who is more comfortable with businesspeople to tackle the assessment. In the meantime, try and see if you can find more sources that are independent, reliable, and demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. All the best,Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)01:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You added a flag that I do not understand:This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.

Can you be more specific and explain ,according to you, what precisely does not comply with Wikipedia quality standards?

Regards,Albacore60 (talk)15:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Albacore60, the article is strangely written with a lot of items that I doubt their necessity to the overall encyclopedic quality of the article itself. There are a lot of sections that are not about the subject at all, and, while likely related in the sense that they're both about theatre or opera, don't even come back to stating their relevance to the subject in the text. There is a lot of promotional language that should be reviewed and either removed or attributed. There are also a lot of strange details that I don't even know how to categorize. For example, the coordinates given use 15 decimal points of accuracy--that corresponds to 100picometres, or roughly double the diameter of a helium atom. There are links that don't make a lot of sense, there are figures that don't have any citations that look internal or promotional. There's a bibliography section that I think might be a programmes section and then a filmography, etc. section that might be the same, but it's used in the references, so are these primary? In some cases if they are used as citations, then they definitely can't be supporting what they claim. There is a level 2 header just titled "What prospects for operetta and musical in Bucharest?" Unless I'm reading it funny, and prospects is being used as a verb (wikt:prospect#Verb), I don't even think that's a complete sentence--not that we should be using sentences (questions or otherwise) as level 2 headers in the first place; as an encyclopedia, we should be answering questions, not asking them. Why are we asking them, are we promoting the subject? That's a definite failure ofWP:NOT. If they are references, they're out of order, so is the external links section. Both of which I'm questioning the value of.

Yeah, I landed on{{Cleanup rewrite}} because there were so many other tags I thought about adding and nothing else could capture the number of issues I thought the article had.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)18:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobby,

I believe your answer is mixed up with another one that has nothing to do ( "picometre...") with the article I wrote... The one I wrote deals about Operetta :). Keeping only your text that deals the relevant article (on Dacian Operetta Theater), I can hardly work on such general and numerous remarks. I need to have the relevant parts of texts.

Can you please list more precisely all points that might be an issue since the descriptions you made lead to a lot of work ? I have spent a considerable time on this article and cannot correct or modify it without being sure I am correcting the right piece of text of references. Should you not be able to provide to me a list of all paragraphs or sentences that are questionable, I am afraid the banner you put above it will stand months with very few changes since the subject needs a writer that knows the matter precisely. Finding someone on Wikipedia that is interested by Operetta in Romania will be very hard. In the best-case scenario, someone will butcher the text and drastically impoverish it, whereas I can make appropriate surgical changes. As you have certainly noticed reading my English, I am French and the previous article that existed on the matter in the Romanian Wikipedia was very poor, obsolete and bland. I wrote the French version and translated it to English and Romanian. No Romanian wikipedia writer ever modify the previous RO article for around 15 years... I doubt that, even though the English Wikipedia community is much larger, some English speaker will have the knowledge and will to correct it. So I am very likely the best writer to do this change and I would be glad that you help me to be able to do so providing a detailed list (pointing at text passages). That will also help me to modify the RO and FR versions accordingly :)Albacore60 (talk)08:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Albacore60, si tu m'excuses mon français canadien, je vais essayer d'expliquer. Tu m'as mal compris--mon commentaire sur le picomètre était une remarque incidente à propos de l'un des problèmes dans l'article qui, à mon sens, était représentatif de tous les autres. La précision des coordonnées exprimées avec 15 décimales correspond à environ ±100 picomètres. (La plus petitevis métrique que tu peux achèter dans une quincaillerie a unetolérance de 0,067 mm de diamètre. Cela fait 670 000 fois plus que la précision que tu as indiquée. Si quelque chose est précis à 100 picomètres près, il a probablement bougé de 3,94 micromètres au cours des 21 jours qui se sont écoulés depuis que tu as écrit l'article, à cause de ladérive des continents seule, il est maintenant inexact à près de quatre millions de pour cent. Comme pour le reste de l'article, il n'est pas nécessaire d'entrer dans un tel niveau de détail.) Je pensais que c'était symbolique, parce que l'article, dans son ensemble, est trop détaillé sur des choses qui ne sont pas liées au sujet (ici, c'estIon Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre). Ce serait probablement plus approprié dans un articleOperetta in Romania. Tu définis des termes, tu donnes une histoire générale, mais tu ne te concentres pas sur le sujet de l'article. Quand tu écris apropos de le théâtre, tu emploies un langage trop promotionnel (WP:NPOV) sans attribution et tu n'as pas de citations appropriées là où elles sont nécessaires avec des chiffres (WP:V).

That is to say, the reason I described whole sections in my first message is because, respectfully, I think it probably should be cut back drastically, and why I chose the template I did. By the sounds of your comment "that is interested by Operetta in Romania", thatis likely the article that needs to be written. A lot of the content should be moved to a new article there. What should remain is content that solely focuses on the theatre itself. Look at it this way: the articleRadio City Music Hall focuses on the building, the company, the acutal subject of the business located there, but does not have a lot of overlap with the subjectMusic of New York City.

And then when deciding what is appropriate to be in an article on the Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre, we need to be more judicious in our writing. "What prospects for operetta and musical in Bucharest?" is a section that is both promotional and likelyWP:OR or a failure ofWP:CRYSTAL. Whether it is appropriate on different language variations of the project is up to their independent communities, what works on one may not work on another.

I'm going to CCBiruitorul here who also had concerns about the articleearlier on my talk, in case there is something more to be added that I missed, or who might be able to better explain than I can.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)20:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t necessarily have that much to add, but I would call attention to the strongly promotional tone. For example inthis four-paragraph section, we have an endless parade of peacock terms: high-quality, outstanding, milestone, great passion, bridge, enormous success, success, excellent cast, landmark, most important in history, consistently praised, remarkable acclaim, success, key role, true challenge, exceeded all expectations, overwhelming success, praised, revelation, great national and international fame.

I think there are more subtle ways of indicating that this was a remarkable period for the operetta. We don’t need to hit the reader over the head with it every five words.Biruitorul^Talk21:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobby,

I now catch your picometre allusion :) You must be a scientific "dans l'âme" to use such an unexpected image :). Votre français est excellent :)

Well I see more or less yours points. What I tried to do is (I do the same in all the articles I wrote previously) an extensive, complete and precise work that helps the reader to understand the root of the subject, its essence and it evolution in history, should it be relevant. That is why the article is so rich and deeply rooted. I do agree that some part might be switch to another article for instance to the existingOperetta article. I can also work on the promotional vocabulary. But I will do this step by step to be sure no information is lost or that I am not modifying the wrong passage. So here is what I propose to you: I will list some changes I think I can do and you will tell me whether it sounds good (I await your approval before doing it since I do not want to work in vain...):

• 0/ I corrected the coordinates data. Initially I just copy/paste the coordinates given by google (which was much too precise in deed) - DONE
• 1/ Move the first chapter == Opéra-comique, operetta, opéra-bouffe, and musical == to theOperetta article
• 2/ Drastically summarize the == The origins of Romanian operetta: French influence and Viennese flavor == chapter as I did in the Romanian version and move or adapt this text so that it will be included in theOperetta article (I already wrote the Romanian chapter in it previously, seeOperetta#Operetta_in_Romanian ; or to a new "Romanian Operetta" article. But I am not a fan of creating the latter because it could strip the article of its essential content. In fact, the Ion Dacian Theatre is deeply tied to the history of Romanian operetta, so I do not think this would be a good idea, as it would risk distorting the article and completely impoverishing it, ultimately making it uninteresting and bland. I have always felt that it is essential to have rich, enjoyable articles to read, since the goal is to keep readers engaged and to spark their curiosity.
• 3/ Work on the promotional vocabulary throughout the article since it is obviously an issue. However on some passage it is the exact reflection of official reports and survey published by the Ministry of Culture or by the Theatre... I will try to use more quotes.
• 4/ work on the === What prospects for operetta and musical in Bucharest? === trying not to lose interesting data, avoiding the "cristal ball" effect
• 5/ The biography section include all books and media that helped me to write the article or are relevant references for a reader that want to go deeper on the subject. Some of them are used as reference in the text. I do not really see what I can do about it... However many will disappear if point 1/ and 2/ are done.

My point of view on some of your comments:

- Looking at theRadio City Music Hall I can see that the article is also very complete, deep and similar to this one. However history is always shorter for American institution for obvious reasons:) In Europe, history is a strong pilar for (most) institutions and can root a long centuries ago. That is why I have included a comprehensive text about it. Moreover stating in 2015 (when the new building was achieved) would present a truncated and very poor presentation of this theatre, cutting form its essential roots (before the communist period)

- I do not agree with your remark dealing with theatre or opera:There are a lot of sections that are not about the subject at all, and, while likely related in the sense that they're both about theatre or opera, don't even come back to stating their relevance to the subject in the text.. If you read carefully the text you will see that because of several events (a purely arbitrary decision from the communist dictator Ceaucescu + a big fire in the TBN + RO government decisions) the Operetta Theater has been hosted a long time in the TNB and has been merged with Opera (ONB) and even been be managed directly by the ONB. So TNB, ONB and Operetta have been linked strongly together some years (for good or bad) and this is their history. I cannot erase these facts that has a huge (generally negative) impact on Operetta. This chaotic and unusual "timeline" for such an institution (as are many subjects in Romania, a country closer to Orient than Occident, where byzantine discussion or attitude often lead to absurd situation, not to mention the heavy legacy of communism) is quite complex, but needs to be explained. However I think I have concentrated most of the details in note and references, thus avoiding an overly long and heavy text. These painful event are still printed in mind amongst Opereta's personnel and artists and will last trace for a long time. The Theater as it is cannot be understood without mentioning these.

So tell what you think about points 1 to 4 :) And we will see later whether the article still needs further adjustments.

Regards,Albacore60 (talk)22:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Albacore60, definitely a good start, and if you think there are things specific to Romania, I think you could probably draft that article as well. I would be happy to take a look at the bibliographic sections after the cleanup and see if I can get them to resemble the typical MOS style once they've been shortened. And then see if/what is needed after that.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)15:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will keep you posted when it is done.

Regards,Albacore60 (talk)16:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

0/ I corrected the coordinates data. Initially I just copy/paste the coordinates given by google (which was much too precise in deed) -DONE

1/ Move the first chapter == Opéra-comique, operetta, opéra-bouffe, and musical == to theOperetta article -DONE

2/ Drastically summarize the == The origins of Romanian operetta: French influence and Viennese flavor == chapter as I did in the Romanian version and move or adapt this text so that it will be included in the Operetta article (I already wrote the Romanian chapter in it previously, see Operetta#Operetta_in_Romanian ; or to a new "Romanian Operetta" article. But I am not a fan of creating the latter because it could strip the article of its essential content. In fact, the Ion Dacian Theatre is deeply tied to the history of Romanian operetta, so I do not think this would be a good idea, as it would risk distorting the article and completely impoverishing it, ultimately making it uninteresting and bland. I have always felt that it is essential to have rich, enjoyable articles to read, since the goal is to keep readers engaged and to spark their curiosity. -DONE

3/ Work on the promotional vocabulary throughout the article since it is obviously an issue. However on some passage it is the exact reflection of official reports and survey published by the Ministry of Culture or by the Theatre... I will try to use more quotes or change vocabulary. -DONE

4/ work on the === What prospects for operetta and musical in Bucharest? === trying not to lose interesting data, avoiding the "cristal ball" effect -DONE

5/ The biography section include all books and media that helped me to write the article or are relevant references for a reader that want to go deeper on the subject. Some of them are used as reference in the text. I do not really see what I can do about it... However many will disappear if point 1/ and 2/ are done. -DONE + changed Biography structure

Tell me what you think of this new version :).Albacore60 (talk)20:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely on the right track but I still think it is largely unfocused on the subject. I do think aWP:SPLIT might be the best solution moving forward for the article.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)20:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobby,

I stick to my opinion and strongly disagree with a split. It would be have a particularly negative effects on this article and would cut it from nearly half of its soul and all its roots. It means that the article would start at best... at the communist period and would let think the reader that communists created Operetta in Romania (that is completely false), or when the previous hall was destroyed by Ceausescu in Romania (1987). The new building opened in 2015. Its would be also wrong to start at that date. Please have a look toParis Opera. Its does not start when thePalais Garnier was built at the XIXth century, but in 1655 and all the history of Opera is part of the article. The logic is the same forOpéra-Comique orComédie-Française. You cannot treat the same way an American theater or scene that has a very short history (generally nothing before 1900) and an European art or scene. By the way, I consider that the banner you put is no longer justified and have removed it.

Regards,Albacore60 (talk)11:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I do understand what you are trying to get at with the building, company history, etc. better. However I do still think the article still lacks focus at times, is missing citations, inappropriately opines on certain things, and uses essay-like headings. I'm not suggesting it be cut back to any particular start date so as to suggest creation be attributed to a particular political philosophy, rather overall the sections be more focused; if you think that I'm doing that as a preference to a political philosophy that I have not mentioned, all I will say is that I think that might be a topic you are extra sensitive to given your userboxes—I've certainly not tried to give a preference for or against either in my messages here or my editing on the article.

I won't quarrel with your tag removal, the beauty of the project is we can disagree and neither of us is inherently right by nature of our own say-so. In the end, we disagree because we both want to improve the article, and regardless, we both agree the project is better of for having the article than for missing it.

Happy editing,Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)14:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, disagreeing peacefully is something precious in this world:) Anyway If you have something precise in mind that you think could be really better, please show me. I will try to improve it. The essay-like heading is voluntary so that its catches readers' attention. So few people read in these days that we need to facilitate them to do the first step. Wikipedia is a sort of "door" to reading. So I do believe that the text should be as attractive as possible, obviously keeping it as neutral as it can be. To understand better what you mean by "the sections be more focused" Please highlight to me two or three passages that not to focus on the matter (title or subject), I will try to do something. Because I present I do not see this precise point...

Regards,Albacore60 (talk)17:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the unsourced issues have been tagged, I can continue to tag when I get a moment. I would also point toMOS:REFERENCES, your inline citations should precede the works cited bibliographies.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)18:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"your inline citations should precede the works cited bibliographies". If I apply that rule, the problem is that they will appear twice: once as a reference and again in the bibliography. That is why I use the harvnb structure that is linked (is calling the complete citation thanks to the id=)to the complete details appearing in the bibliography...Albacore60 (talk)20:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. That's why I didn't move the closing references tag myself, there is some cleanup to do. If the full citation is given inline, then there is no need to give it again in the bibliography.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)20:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read again all the "Notes & References" section and did not noticed any reference that is again cited in the Bibliography. Did I miss something? Regards.Albacore60 (talk)21:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So then the inline references could be moved before the bibliography and they won't appear twice?Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)21:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you moved "References" section before "Bibliography", so this solves this problem right ? Fine for me :)Albacore60 (talk)17:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on your tags (Citation needed) later on. Thanks !--Albacore60 (talk)18:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Working on citations needed, one by one.Albacore60 (talk)09:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians open to trout slapping