Vasile

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
• Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
• When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
• Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

---

Vasile, if you have any interest in working on Reign of Terror, please go for it. It's on my long list of articles I eventually want to work on, but it's so far down that it will be at least months until I get there. First, I'm trying to do accurate articles on the French Revolution down through the abolition of the monarchy; I haven't started on the Convention years. And I keep being distracted by the continual tendency of articles Jew, left-wing politics, right-wing politics, conservatism, and political liberalism (and a few others of that ilk) to drift off into opinionated messes. I keep trying to pull them back towards neutrality, but it really eats my time. If you want to see a real mess, have a look at Left-wing_politics#Leftism.2C_Pacifism_and_.22War_on_Terror.22 (& see my critique at Talk:Left-wing_politics#Leftism.2C_Pacifism_and_.22War_on_Terror.22). -- Jmabel 06:47, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

---

Is there a reason to add Guillaume Marie Anne Brune to Category:French Revolution as well as Category:French Revolutionary Wars? The latter category is subordinate to the former, and as far as I know his significance was as a soldier. -- Jmabel 17:54, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

According to the article Guillaume Marie Anne Brune: "Before the Revolution he went to Paris to study law, and here he became a political journalist, a Jacobin and a friend of Danton. He was appointed in 1793 to a superior command in the army direct from civil life." He played a major role in 13 Vendémiaire and that event is not connected with revolutionary wars. Desaix about Brune: "A été employé à Bordeaux et à Marseille du temps de la terreur." He was a montagnarde republican first, then a soldier.--Vasile 04:04, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

___

The Vienna Arbitration is officially called Vienna Award in English. See e.g. http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS076.pdf. Therefore I will chage it correspondigly.Juro 23:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) "The Vienna Arbitration is officially called Vienna Award in English. See e.g. http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS076.pdf. Therefore I will chage it correspondigly.Juro 23:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Hi! You imposed the name of the article so I suppose you know a lot about those events. Why do you think it is more appropiate to use the word "award" rather than "arbitration"? Thanks for taking your time to answer me.--Vasile 00:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vienna Award is the only correct title in English (have a look in Google for example). It is also used in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and all official texts (like the above mentionned LEGAL text of US government). Previously, I also thought that the correct name was Vienna Arbitration (and I also introduced the term into many Wikipedia articles), but that's not the case. And in other languages that are able to make the distinction, the name also refers to the resulting decision (i.e. the award) and not to the process (e.g. in German Wiener Schiedsspruch vs. Wiener Arbitrage). It's because Hungary gained the territories in virtue of the decision and not in virtue of the decision process. Thus, Vienna Awards (as the result of Vienna arbitrations) is correct as well. Juro 02:05, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

US and Britain were ignored in the decision process; that doesn't mean there has been no such process.

The resulting decision was presented being "arbitration award" by the "arbitrors" Germany & Italy. The territory was gained due the "arbitration" decision. The award is a part of the arbitration, as the verdict is part of the trial. I agree you introduced the term into Wikipedia articles. Please let your term "Vienna Arbitrations" be the name of the article and be used in other articles. --Vasile 03:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I did not explain my point clearly enough. This is a pure language problem, nothing else, and I have been looking for months to find the correct English name instead of the provisional Vienna Arbitration. I did not expect that now that I have found the version generally used in English history and legal texts (see e.g. Enc. Britannica), there would be problems about it. All the reasons I have given above for the use of award are only reasons why I think Award is used, but actually that is not relevant, because award is simply the only correct English usage. The term Vienne Arbitration is used by wrongly translated Slovak, Romanian etc. texts only. And the fact that England did not participate is also irrelevant for the language, because - to take an extreme example- there are also certain English language words for many things from the Roman Empire (wars, treaties), although of course England did not participate. Juro 13:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Talk:Munich Agreement Mintguy (T)

minor edits

Well, yeah, you're not supposed to change 93% to 95% (or whatever numbers were there...), remove link to the ethnic group, and a whole paragraph that's stood there untouched and verified for years, and mark the edit as minor, providing a partial (and unfounded) explanation. Those changes could individually qualify as minor edits but altogether they are quite notable. --Shallot 17:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Farce

Farce is an opinion. You can't put your opinion into an article. If you can find a quote in which the term was used to describe the tile, then you can include the quote. RickK 04:09, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Edits in History of Hungary

Vasile, you don't have to make every single change in the article a separate line in the history page - four or so are enough. Since old history is not accessible endlessly, this can become a problem after some time. So please copy the relevant parts of the article into your own text editor, change it, and only then insert the result into the article. Juro 17:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

...

No, I don't have anything to communicate to you other than what I've written in the log visible from the page history.

Why are you repeating this fairly pointless and also semi-wrong notice (talk about specific pages should be in those talk pages, not scattered around the user talk pages)? --Joy [shallot]

Vasile,

I see that you deleted a refence to the rule of the Moldavian region by Halych Volynia around 1300. I understand that it was during this time that The city of Galati was founded, named after Halych (Galicia). If this is incorrect, or you have other history to offer for this time period, please let me know.

Genyo 15:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vadim Tudor

Please see my question at Talk:Corneliu Vadim Tudor. - Jmabel 17:08, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

population in Romania in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article

What do you think of the following wording?

The annexed Romanian territories were inhabitated mostly by Romanians, with a significant Jewish minority also present. However, the inhabitants of Bessarabia were treated by the Soviet Union as romanised Ukrainians while the German authorities perceived a large part of them(? - or Romanians in general?) as ethnic Germans.

I'm sorry to say, but your chosen wording doesn't travel well from one ESL-user to another.

Regards! --Johan Magnus 20:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Transylvania Article

Vasile, I see that you removed the whole Late Middle Ages history (maybe this was by accident) as well as references in the Ancient Times section. Well, the history of Transylvania is not just about Hungarians and Romanians - various other peoples also have a place in its history. I'm trying to flesh out this article as there is a lot more to the history of Transylvania than it currently contains. Of course, its difficult to avoid (largely-biased) Hungarian and Romanian sources when writing something like this, so I don't pretend that everything I write will be accurate. Frankly, both sides use controversial arguments to support their own nationalistic aims (which is quite clear to outside observers). But that in itself is part of the history of the region. I myself am from a region of the world which has seen various peoples inhabit its lands (northern England), but that's part of the richness of my heritage. So, if you believe that anything I write needs changing, then do so but please do me the courtesy of explaining why (and giving sources for your changes).

Thanks,

Scott

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Tudor, again

Why the removal of the image at Corneliu Vadim Tudor? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think that in many ways that poster sums up Tudor's appeal: the (belated) embrace of the EU, the willful ambiguity between România Mare and Partidul România Mare, populism stripped to its materialistic essentials... There would be nothing wrong with attaching a similar poster for any politician, Romanian or otherwise. We lack a simple portrait for Tudor, which would also be appropriate. Usually we don't remove even modearately appropriate images unless we can substitute a better one. And, believe me, I have no desire to promote Tudor, I think he's pond scum. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think a simple image would be better, too. Do you have one? If not, I'm inclined to restore what we've got, because I think it is better than nothing. Probably this image ultimately belongs more appropriately on the page about the Great Romania Party. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading the image

• Image:Armand.JPG

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 05:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same for Image:Religion.jpg. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 00:21, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

And Image:WGMW.jpg. Images without tags will eventually be deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 14:44, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

History of Canada

Hi Vasile. I was wondering why you changed "granted viritual independence" to "granted a Constitution". I had chosen the previous wording with care as most people outside Canada think Canada had little independence after 1867. In fact one of the motivating factors for the British was to reduce their military expenditures in Canada and they withdrew their armed forces as soon as they could in 1871 (only the Red River Rebellion of 1870 prevented an earlier withdrawal). That really left only foreign affairs which was not resolved until the early 1920s. Of course the BNA Act was a Constitution but it was written by Canadians, not UK parliamentarians who took almost no interest in the bill, and certainly did not draft it. To say the UK parliament granted Canada a constitution implies that it was gracious of them to do so, when in fact they merely complied with Canadian wishes, and were anxious to avoid any further expense in Canada. I wish you would restore the earlier wording. Persons who want to know more about the constitution need only consult the more detailed articles listed at the bottom of the page or via links. The agreement has been to keep this page to a bare minimum.--BrentS 02:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Vasile - you simply do not understand Canadian history. There was no political subordination to Britain after 1867 except in foreign affairs, and the Governor General was the medium for communicating with the Foreign & Colonial offices. Give me an example of political subordination or interference from the British apart from foreign affairs. You are meddling with articles where you have no expertise.--BrentS 17:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Vasile. Thanks for the references to the Colonial Laws Validity Act (you should write an article on it). I still hold to the distinction between the legal regime and the political realities. I vaguely recollect that the Macdonald government had a tariff policy the British were not too thrilled with, but Macdonald held firm even though it must have been "repugnant" to British policy, if not law. I notice on one website that Sir Edward Grey in 1907 advised the Canadian government that it was free to negotiate a treaty with the United States without passing through London. I suppose our differences are really of emphasis - you like "subordination", I prefer "virtual independence" or "growing independence" even though you dislike the word "virtual". Perhaps others will weigh in the "independence" issue eventually. --BrentS 23:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Transnistria

you wrote: I see nothing disputed in this page.

Hi Vasile, the user:Fisenko who placed the POV tag specifically enumerated what he perceives as POV problems at the article's talk page talk:Transnistria. I am not ready to jump in an judge the merit of arguments from either side, but until his points are answered fully in good faith, at talk page, at least, his remark is valid. Regards, -Irpen 05:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Image:WGMW.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:WGMW.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Three revert rule

Hi! I noticed that you have removed the POV tag on the Transnistria article five times within the last 24 hours. The WP:3RR states that you should not revert an article more than three times in any 24 hour period. Looking through the talk page for this article I can find no indication that the dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, so a {{POV}} (or may be {{disputed}}) tag should remain on the article page. JeremyA 4 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Tiraspol

I think you're assuming that a place being de facto independent is a judgement over its final status, or whether it should or will be independent. The Transnistrian "government" in Tiraspol currently has sovereignty over its territory - it decides what goes on, as opposed to the government in Chisinau. There is a generally functioning seperate government that governs over the territory they lay claim to. That's just the way it is. Saying it is de facto independent doesn't mean it necessarily should be independent, or that it will be - it's just describing the situation as it currently stands. Ambi 11:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point - I misunderstood what you were arguing. I still don't think it's acceptable to remove the phrase altogether, as it makes the status of Transnistria too unclear. The ECHR is a convincing source as to Russian dominance of Transnistria, and I see that how affects the de facto independent claim. My main point is making its current seperation from the Chisinau government clear - if you can come up with an alternate phrasing that takes care of the Russia issue concisely (as it's an article about Tiraspol, not Transnistria) and neutrally, I'll likely not object, as I'm not in a position to dispute that argument (and indeed, on the basis of what I've read, likely agree with it). Ambi 13:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Moldova

In ceea ce priveshte republica Moldova, fii bun, lasa pe moldoveni sa-şi aleaga ei singuri naţionalitatea. Eşti Roman, shi e foarte bine. Insa in RM majoritatea populatiei sunt Moldoveni, cum a indicat shi recensamantul recent, unde ponderea Romanilor era de cateva procente. In ceea ce priveshte obiectivitatea recensamantului, daca ai ceva sa-mi reprosheyi a propos, nimeni nu inpiedica sa se numeasca Romani, pe cei, cei ce vroiau sa se numeasca Romani. serhio ^talk 11:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

De mai sus, priveshte Republic of Moldova serhio ^talk 12:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In articol eu m-am referit la perioada pre-sovietica, inainte de formarea poporului moldovean in cadrul marii familii de popoare sovietice. --Vasile 14:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Odessa massacre

My edits reflect the definition and casualty counts of the Odessa from the US Holocaust Museum, which states "Romanian and German forces killed almost 100,000 Jews in Odessa during the occupation of the city. Several thousand Jews survived in hiding with the aid of local Russian and Ukrainian rescuers." The Museum includes Jews from the Odessa area who were killed in the Romanian camps as part of the Odessa massacre, in addition to those killed in Odessa itself. The problem is that there is no formal definition of the Odessa massacre, so the article explains the range of killings in 41 and 42, taking the timeline from the USHMM. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, you say the data is matched, but you did that by deleting the USHMM figures, which are obviously highly reputible. What is your reason for doing so? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your answer on my page was a little glib (we are both trying to make it a better article), but I think the article is now much improved thanks to your work and our discussions. Are you happier with the current form? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

so called "moldovan" language and Romanian

Salut Vasile! Maybe you will like to check the recent dispute regarding to the Moldovan_language and take some support actions. Your help is wellcomed. There is no unitary Moldovan language. It seems that user Node deletes systematic an important part of the text. Plus, you may suppor the action to file a vandalism report as proposal of Dpotop [[1]]. Stay sharp.Impreuna suntem o forta. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

You may also check this out Transnistria. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Ronline for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ronline and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ronline . I have nominated Ronline to be Administrator for English Wikipedia. Let's vote for him! Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Ai votat? Ce mai astepti? Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan language business

I reverted all your edits there. Let us talk on the talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vasile. It is me again. I realize that my revert took you aback and you still wonder why the heck I did that. Sorry, I was too rushed. Let me try to explain.

That article has a very very long history of revert wars, abuses, calling names, and whatever bad behavior you can think of. And romanians contributing there are guitly of that too.

Now, I believe you did not recently contribute to that article or gone to its talk page. The protection on that article was just lifted, and when I saw you editing away at it without seeing you on the talk page and making big changes, I thought this will start a big edit war. And that's the last thing we need.

That is, it is good that any big changes (adding removing language history, changing facts, etc) be not done without discussion. Some people are spending a lot of their energy arguing things over there, and will be really upset if somebody else edits the article without being asked first. The article is not in a really bad shape right now (that is, nobody on each side likes it, which is a good thing :) So let us try to move slowly. More discussion on the talk page is welcome, as now people again started talking badly about Russians instead of focusing at the facts at hand. Thannks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article will be even better. Sa fiti siguri. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexander for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Our forum

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 17:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan language

Vasile, you have been editing Moldovan language, but the article incorporates some recent edits of Node_ue, which will probably be reverted. The rule on the that article, due to its status of being highly disputed, is to discuss all edits on the talk page before operating them in the article. Please do so. --AdiJapan 17:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, many people, including Romanians, have been abusing that talk page. But this doesn't mean we should not use it for constructive discussions on the article.

In your edits you removed the paragraph below. Did you have a reason? If so, that reason has to be stated on the talk page. If it was by mistake, please fix it.

Twenty-two years later, in 1940, the Soviet Union annexed Bessarabia. A year later, in 1941, Romania invaded the Soviet Union as part of Operation Barbarossa and retook Bessarabia (along with a large portion of Ukraine). These territories were taken back by the Soviet Union 3 years later in 1944, and remained under Soviet administration until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

--AdiJapan 18:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Eu sunt de acord cu un redirect la romanian. Simplu si repede. Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Un redirect la Romanian language cred ca ar fi prea devreme.

Oameni buni, aici avem nevoie de unitate si de mai multa cooperare intre noi. Node este enervant, ce-i drept. Insa e adevarat ca e si pus la punct cu propaganda anti-Romaneasca iar noi nu venim cu surse care sa-i inchida pliscul. Propun ca sa venim cu articole, nu sa facem copy-paste dar sa dam numai adresa de unde se poate accesa articolul.Constantzeanu 22:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Your problem with Bukowina

Definitely, you are not at best writing about Bukowina and city of Cernauti, as you dislike the region. Please refrain on reverting without reading or thinking on others contribution. --Vasile 14:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations that I dislike something are just silly and baseless. I will edit articles with reading and thinking as I see fit and in accordance with Wiki-ethics and Wiki-policies. --Irpen 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides, your contribution mainly consisted of deleting big chunks of information, almost of the whole chapters. This is on the borderline of vandalism and would have been reverted by someone else, if not by me, anyway. Please use article's talk to discuss the edits to the article, so that the discussion is seen by all interested parties. --Irpen 18:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen your text is irrelevant, that's why should be deleted. Bonaparte talk 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. —David Levy 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep it easy

The same message was for Irpen. Keep it cool. There's no need to be blocked. Everything is under control. And maybe discussed in peace.--163.20.85.7 21:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

La Multi Ani!

Multumesc frumos. Bonaparte talk 16:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Stii Vasile asta (Alex) mai vrea sa fie si administrator dupa ce editari a facut la pagina cred ca nu va reusi. Bonaparte talk 15:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile du-te si voteaza si tu cu ronline si mai stii tu la cine. Bonaparte talk 19:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Tu nu citesti mai sus? Sa trimit pe mail? Bonaparte talk 12:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ti-am trimis pe mail. Bonaparte talk 13:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

vasile, lasa pagina aia la bucovina asa cum este, nu-mi sterge harta. ce rost ar avea ca sa punem pe moldoveni ca etnie separata numai ca primesc bani separat de romani? nu prea vad nici un sens. sa nu confundam politica de stat a ucrainei cu adevarul.Constantzeanu 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mii de scuze. Am crezut că erai tu. Te rog frumos, mergi şi pe Moldovan language şi Moldova când mai ai timp că acolo lucrurile au început să meargă mai greu. Constantzeanu 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ilascu

I didn't know where you wanted me to answer. The reply I gave is on my page. Dahn 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

transnistria/gagauzia

I only today accidentally discovered this "double" article. If you look into its history, you will see that it was edited by a small number of accidental people. I added links to it into several artricles, so that people who know things may do something with it. E.g. merge useful things somewhere else and delete the article altogether. On the other hand, History of Moldova has a section "Secession of Gagauzia and Transnistria", so it may make sense to have this article as "main" for this section. mikka (t) 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you really want it deleted, I can do it for you. But if you want to practice yourself (you have to learn it sooner or later), see wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. mikka (t) 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Don't use the edit summary to call me names.[2] Wikipedia rules require that you enter a meaningful edit summary, avoid personal attacks, and remain civil. —Michael Z. 2006-02-16 18:47 Z

Kertész

The text you put on the article on Imre Kertész was ungrammatical, hardly-legible, and entirely unidiomatic English. My edits brought it in line with proper English encyclopedia tone. Please leave it the way it is, or ask someone who is a native speaker of English to intervene. CRCulver 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Konigsberg_bridge.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Konigsberg_bridge.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Vino la pagina de discutii Transnistria

În 17 septembrie va fi referendum în Transnistria legat de independenţa regiunii. Cu această ocazie probabil multă lume va căuta pe Wikipedia informaţii despre Transnistria. Am încercat să adaug în articol nişte informaţii legate de acest referendum, anume:

- faptul că mai multe organizaţii antiseparatiste au lansat un apel la boicotare, considerînd referendumul "farsă"

- faptul că din 46 de ţări membre ale Consiliului Europei, 45 sînt împotriva recunoaşterii referendumului, numai RUsia are altă părere

- faptul că datele Comisiei Electorale Centrale din Tiraspol au fost schimbate în mod ciudat, anume numărul total de alegători s-a micşorat cu 7% faţă de 2005, ceea ce ridică suspiciuni asupra unei încercări de creştere artificială a prezenţei la vot prin raportarea unui număr mai mic de alegători înregistraţi.

Totdeauna am dat lincurile care dovedesc cele scrise de mine, n-am născocit nimic din burtă.

Userul Willian Mauco, care pare fan Tiraspol, mereu mi-a şters adăugirile. (vezi istoria paginii)

Puteţi vedea la pagina de discuţii Transnistria ce argumente a adus. Anume: ăia care cer boicotarea referendumului din Transnistria sînt foşti KGB-işti, că aşa zice o organizaţie rusească de analiză (a dat un linc pentru asta). Întîi a spus că respectivii nici nu sînt din Transnistria, ci doar din Basarabia, dar i-am dovedit că unii dintre semnatarii apelului la boicot sînt transnistreni. Am fost împăciuitor, i-am zis că n-are decît să adauge părerea organizaţiei ruseşti că antiseparatiştii sînt foşti KGBişti, că n-are decît să-i considere pe cei care vor boicotarea referendumului drept băieţi răi, dar faptul în sine, că s-a cerut boicotarea referendumului, trebuie menţionat. Degeaba, mereu mi s-au şters adăugirile - pentru celelalte 2 fapte nici n-a adus argumente.

A mai fost o adăugire care a şters-o, despre arestarea a 4 persoane din Transnistria care sînt împotriva separatismului (între timp li s-a dat drumul). În cazul ăsta am renunţat eu să mai insist pentru includerea informaţiei în articol (deşi informaţia e incontestabilă), tocmai fiindcă n-am vrut să mă cert prea mult.

În perioada asta cînd agenţiile de ştiri vor menţiona referendumul de la Tiraspol, se va citi articolul Transnistria în Wikipedia poate mai mult decît într-un an întreg. De aia acum e nevoie să existe în articol informaţii despre contestarea corectitudinii referendumului. Nu cer să se menţioneze ca adevăr absolut faptul că referendumul e incorect, ci doar că există unii (OSCE, 45 din 46 ţări ale Consiliului Europei, unele organizaţii din zonă şi din Basarabia) care consideră asta. Vă cer de aceea sprijinul ca să interveniţi pe pagina de discuţii Transnistria pentru a susţine rămînerea informaţiei în pagină şi să repuneţi informaţia atunci cînd Mauco o şterge (eu nu pot să verific chiar 24 de ore din 24). Evitaţi atacurile suburbane, păstraţi ton civilizat. mulţumesc.

Who is William Mauco Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) http://0.bypass-filter.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZGx1Y2FzLmJsb2dzcG90LmNvbS8yMDA2LzA4L2dvdGNoYS0yLmh0bWw%3D

Edward Lucas wrote about Mauco: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 08:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Votează contra ştergerii articolului Heaven of Transnistria

Împreună cu EvilAlex (un tip din Tighina - Transnistria) am creat un articol despre propaganda separatistă a Tiraspolului Heaven of Transnistria. I s-a cerut ştergerea. Te rog ajută-ne să păstrăm articolul, votînd contra ştergerii[3]. Destul s-a şters din articolul principal Transnistria, Wikipedia e plină de propagandă a Tiraspolului, să avem măcar un articol care explică această propagandă--MariusM 18:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Armand.JPG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Armand.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Raison1793.jpg.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Raison1793.jpg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Is it possible to find some more sources of information on this topic Marielle Houle? It is tagged with a notability tag, and there are currently 31 articles in the scope of wikiproject Canada which are tagged with notability concerns, so I am contacting anyone to see if the quantity of notability concern articles can be reduced, and quality increased. For more help see this note or the article talk page for a current discussion. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 19:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Nimic.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Nimic.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2010 (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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)