User talk:NorbertArthur

Romanians

Norbert, ce spui este adeverat. Trebe sa asteptam cand nu o sa fie Jmabel si prostu ola jayjig pe faza. Nu mai bine (BaNaTeaN 01:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

salut Norbert. asa cum ai spus este bine. sa negociem cu ei. (BaNaTeaN 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Norbert cred ca o sa vorbesc cu un admin, ca vagabondsi au vandalisad pagina Australian-romanian. Tu ce zice sa facem? (BaNaTeaN 02:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

cred ca ar fi bine sa facem o pagina despre romanian-brazilian, romanian-mexican, si romanian-french. nu mai bine norbert (BaNaTeaN 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

am avut e-mail dar am uitat password. o sa ma uite pentru 1 million de romanii in america. am gasit multe despre america. Nu mai bine o sa ti le dau cand gasesc source bune. (BaNaTeaN 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Salut Arthur, Christos A-inviat!, sarbatorii fericite. (BaNaTeaN 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure if you can read this, you don't specify if you know English, but you see I can speak, read, and a little bit write in Romanian. I wanted to leave a message about the Romanians page on another user's page, and read what you wrote about that administrator and the vandalism. I think it's horrible. Reach me @ Basketball110 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC) La multi ani![reply]

Romania's economy

Arthur, the economic data that is currently up cannot possibly be true. Romania's GDP per capita in 2005 was $8300 and it could not have gone up to 11600 (an increase of 42%!) within four months. I have tried talking to the other users but the anonymous ones don't even think that it is necessary to cite sources or explain their changes. The current values do not make any sense and in my view the data from the IMF or CIA should be used in its place. I could not find any sources for values above $10000 for the current GDP per capita of Romania, if you have such information could you please show me the source. TSO1D 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Grunfeld

Hi, just FYI, I removed most of your text from Ernie Grunfeld as it was a {{copyvio}}

Andrei Codrescu

Hi. I don't understand your edit to Andrei Codrescu with the comment "Codrescu was not Jewish !". While not religious, he has made many references to his his Jewish ancestry and has described himself that way. Also, the "was" seems a curious use of the past tense for a living subject. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my reply at Talk:Andrei Codrescu and suggest moving the discussion there in case anyone else is interested in the topic. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 04:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sergiu.gorun.750pix.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Sergiu.gorun.750pix.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for Wikipedia lists of ethnic groups

Please may I draw your attention to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups

Your contributions would be very welcome. -- Brownlee 12:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos, pune din nou sursele cu privire la numărul românilor.

Nu trebuie să ai încredere în Alexandru..cum îl mai cheamă. Lasă că suntem destui români treji la cap. --Iasi 06:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other's comments

User:Romanian removed other people's comments on you talk. I reverted him. If you wish to keep his changes then feel free but I'm just doing my job. ;). --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Flagrom-australian.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Flagrom-australian.750pix.jpg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians

Hi. It looks like most if not all of the numbers are cited, including Italy. Besides, I was reverting a sockpuppet of the banned User:Bonaparte, who is infamous for his POV-pushing in the name of a Greater Romania. Please tell me specifically what is wrong about the current version of the page. --Khoikhoi 01:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Can you translate for me, please, what you were writing on Alexander 007's page? I notice it was removed but you kept restoring it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust him to give an accurate translation. Basically, what he was doing was acting as if I did not acknowledge that I insulted him, when in fact I did acknowledge this on User talk:Gutza#Salut. Despite this, he was writing frankly inane posts where he threatens to have me blocked and taunts me & harasses. I may translate them later, but they are a waste of time. Alexander 007 03:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of them was already translated by the anonymous French-writing IP. Nothing much. Alexander 007 03:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what he expects me to do. I admitted I insulted him; so if he wants to get me blocked, well he can go ahead and lobby for it. And that's what he's been doing, at WP:AN/I and other places. So far, all he gets is crickets. He was not calmly asking for an apology, he was aggravating things with harassing posts, where I in fact had to restrain myself from letting loose with real personal attacks. He definitely does not know how to resolve a dispute, if that's what he wants. I removed his posts, not, as he delusionally believes, because they "expose" anything, but because they are pointless. If he wants to get me blocked, he should go try. If he wants an apology, he should ask me in a normal manner. Otherwise he shouldn't post, because I don't care what else he has to say and I don't need to be online responding to any comment he comes up with, nor do I want his rude/inane statements on my talk page, full of slangy, badly written Romanian. Alexander 007 03:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It began as a polite request from me on User talk:Romania. It continued on my talk page here. Whoever is interested in this debacle feel free to begin their search from there, then checking other pages involved. I summarized what happened here:User talk:Gutza#Salut. I made mistakes, so did he. However, the insult from me was sparked off by a blatant (and later admitted) lie from Norbert. Yes, I should not have made a personal attack in any case. It happens. Feel free to pursue the case. Have fun. Alexander 007 04:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok mai, fii atent aici. Termin cu procesele de blocare daca incetezi sa iti bagi nasu' in tot ce fac, ai inteles? Tu acuma incerci sa faci pe innocentul, stergandu-mi tot ce am cerut explicatii si ori si care admin am scris ti-ai bagat. Bah sa stii ca yo nu iti accept asta, da? Daca iti crei scuze pt aceste atacuri personale, totul va fii ok. A da, si auzi, tu nici macar nu esti in stare sa scrii in romana, asa ca fa misto de cum scriu eu, da?

NorbertArthur 15 April 2006

Salut Norbert! As vrea sa facem cunostinta, imi pare bine sa te cunosc. Am vrut sa te ajut si uite ce a iesit. Sa te uiti la editarile mele. Am citit mai sus. Cine nu e in stare sa scrie in romana mai e oare roman adevarat? --Chisinau 14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ti-am scris ceva si pe pagina mea. Sa citesti si sa ma ajuti. Eu am sursele si in curand o sa le pun pe pagina. --Chisinau 15:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uite ce face khoikhoi ala si vezi poate ii poti spune cateva. scoate aia de pe pagina mea ca daca o mai scot eu ma blocheaza pentru ca am scos-o de 3 ori. --Chisinau 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mai de unde o luati mai ca numerele astea nu sunt adevarate? Du-te pe pagina lui chisinau - unde ai sa vezi raspunsul meu. NorbertArthur tu stii mai bine ca doar traiesti aici, in Canada nu sunt nici 1/2 de milion de romani. Daca sunt 200.000. Tu te uiti la montreal unde vezi in jur de 10.000 - 20.000 de romani si aplici asta la toata canada? Pai toata lumea stie ca romanii sunt cei mai multi aici in montreal si in toronto si ca toti emigrantii suntem mai multi in orasele mari. Constantzeanu 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eu am gasit in manual. Uite ce face irpen si cu coicoiul ala. Chisinau 20:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NorbertArthur, I don't think we ever met but in case you are not aware, please read this and this. --Irpen 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is there? I haven't seen the connection. --Chisinau 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ca sa clarific: sunt total importriva numarului de 36 de milioane.

Vorbind specific de Canada: si eu personal am citit in Ziarul Gazeta de Montreal ca in 2000 erau 6600 de romani. Sa stii ca daca am fi 30.000 de romani in montreal ar insemna ca am fi exact 2% din populatia orasului ori asta este imposibil: ca sa-ti arat ca este imposibil vreau sa consideri ca in MTL, 53% sunt francezii iar ce mai mare minoritate sunt englezii cu 18%. vrei sa-mi zici ca noi suntem de 9 ori mai putini ca englezii? Pe deasupra dintre emigranti (cam 500.000 pe insula montreal) considra populatia de asiatici (chinezii numai sunt cam 100.000), arabi (cam 70.000), evrei (50.000), italieni (cel putin 100.000), spanioli, portugezi, greci, armeni - toate aceste minoritati sunt cu mult mai mari decat cea romana.

Italienii au "mica italie in nordul montrealului", evreii au un oras intreg in "cote st. luc", portugezii la fel. Pana si rusii si ucrainienii au fel de fel de restaurante prin montreal - cu clientele de obicei din comunitatea lor. Noi avem doar un magazin "Bucarest" care si ala e plin de vanzatori basarabeni pentru ca acolo tot rusii vin sa cumpere. Constantzeanu 22:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to all Wikipedians, dear Romanian users, please switch back to English. Nothing prevents you from using the Romanian language in private communications if you really must. --Irpen 00:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really glad that you have been watching us so closely Irpen; are you fascinated with us that much?

But because you have asked so nicely and politely I will say this in English (just for you Irpen) :)))

NorbertArthur, about your arguments, I agree that the number of churches does suggest a large number of Romanians. I didn't say it is 6.600 now. I only said that this is the number reported in 2000. Perhaps it has grown significantly since then to perhaps 10.000-15.000 (It can't have been growing much more then that considering that Romania is undergoing an economic growth right now). If you think about it, how many churches does a town of 10.000 people have?

About the 4 Romanian schools, I am really surprised to find that. You mean that there are 4 Romanian schools in Montreal? Please point them out to me! I never heard of them but if they exist, I would really like to visit them. When I came to this city From Ontario in 1999, there were no Romanian schools, otherwise my parents would have send me to one for sure.

Lastly, I really don't think that we should have any reason to "not trust" the Canadian census. This is Canada :) We are not leaving in Ukraine or something. Nobody is going to downplay our minority's size in this country ;))) Constantzeanu 05:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline logos

Hi, I had to replace these with links as copyrighted images aren't permitted to be used on userpages. Regards Arniep 22:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Romanian-australian.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Romanian-australian.750pix.jpg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Ro-Ampop.750px.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ro-Ampop.750px.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--cjllw | TALK 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, that image appears to be tagged incorrectly as a Public Domain work of the US Govt. However, that diagram comes from the Embassy of Romania site, and is part of a presentation compiled by some folks from Georgetown Uni - neither of these are agencies of the US govt.--cjllw | TALK 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(in response to your message at my talk page) Stupid or not, unfortunately copyright is a fact of life, and there are numerous good reasons why wikipedia takes correct licensing use seriously- it is wikipedia policy, as a matter of fact. If you haven't done so already, please review this information on wikipedia and copyrights.

Note that copyright issues also prevent the wholesale reproduction of large tracts of text, without the proper attribution, such as I have removed at Romanian-American. I'm afraid (generally speaking) you really can't simply copy a bunch of text and base an article around it. You could of course use the facts from that source, but you need (no great effort, surely) to reword it, and/or present as (brief) quotes, properly attributed. For the information which was on that article, the better course of action if you want to include that data is to write it in your own words, and give the reference to the source.--cjllw | TALK 03:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian-American

(again in reply to your post on my talk page)Norbert, firstly don't remove cited census data, and secondly please try not to disrupt the flow of the inline citations. If you are unsure how these work, review WP:FN.

The "truth" is that a variety of estimates can be found in a variety of sources, but portraying any one of these as the actual and only figure is misleading. A comment made by the editor of a small-circulation newspaper is not in and of itself conclusive. Nevertheless, I have again rewritten that section including those two sources, but making explicit mention of their nature as estimates. This, I trust, will suffice.

Curiously, you seem to be well prepared to challenge high estimates made for populations of other ethnic/national groups, demand sources and to insist upon the primacy of census data- such as at Armenian-American. I don't see why the same rigour should not be applied in this case.--cjllw | TALK 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(in response to your subsequent reply)Hang on there, NorbertArthur- some of the above appears to be a result of confusion of grammar, and other parts a confusion of sources:

re LA and Chicago, my sentence actually reads: "…an estimate of 120,000 in the greater Los Angeles area, while the Romanian museum in Chicago mentions an estimate of 100,000 in that city" (emphasis added). In this sentence, "that city" is meant to refer to Chicago, not LA. I suppose it is grammatically ambiguous, and can easily be amended.
The 56,000 figure for CA. and the others mentioned there comes from the 2000 US Census, not Ro-Am.net. Those figures are factual (i.e., it is a fact that those are what the census records), and census data is always quotable, whether you believe those figures or not. I do not state, "there are 56,000 Ro-Ams in California"; instead I say something like "US census figures recorded 56,000 Ro-Ams in California"— can you see the difference? The sentence does not claim to know what the true figure is, but factually reports what other sources have said.
Mentioning that the 1.2M Ro-Am Network estimate for the US includes some other ethnic groups as well is correct- take another look at the source where they explicitly say that other groups are included in this number. Quoting directly from them: "Therefore, other immigrants of Romanian national minority groups have been inlcuded [sic] such as: Armenians, Germans, Gypsies, Hungarians, Jews, and Ukrainians."
The 'other annoying thing' I write is actually this: "…and second- and third-generation descendents, some of whom have not or do not primarily identify with a Romanian heritage (emphasis added). This again is correct- it is clear that not all of the 2nd & 3rd generation descendants estimated by the RoAm source identify primarily as Romanian (else they'd indicate it on their census forms). The statement is also supported by the RoAm source, which says: "…including not just the first generation immigrants that came from Romania and declared their ethnic origin as Romanian." The RoAm study has guessed at the numbers of these descendants and included them, without regard as to whether or not they think of themselves as Romanian- presumably some do, some do not, we simply don't have the information. But I am not removing them from the 1.2M total, just noting explicitly what that number is supposed to be comprised of (the RoAm study does not say how many 2nd/3rd gen. descendants they allowed for, or how they estimated the figure for these).

Re the Armenians, if you have the sources then go ahead and mention them- but I'd suggest you ensure firstly that the sources are halfway reliable, and to use expressions like "according to <source>", rather than straight assertions like "there are x Armenians", or whatever. Not every number appearing on the internet is reliable.--cjllw | TALK 00:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NorbertArthur, not knowing the other sources you have in mind, I have no opinion on them; my suggestion to you above was that you consider whether or not they are reasonably reliable sources, before seeking to add them in. If they concern numbers of particular communities in the US, then the "distribution" section should be fine. --cjllw | TALK 04:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not alone CJLL. You have to understand this: there are many people who knows for sure that are more romanians as you may even imagine. --Bombonel 19:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I say more loud CJLL? I'm with Norbert. Not only that there is a huge lie, it's also covered by statistics. Norbert is right when he says that at least 8 millions of romanians there are. --Bombonel 19:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups

I'm sorry for the delay in replying. There is a discussion on the Village Pump page about policy on who should and should not be included on ethnic lists. I thought that as someone who edits such lists, you might want to express your views. Please feel free to e-mail if you would like to discuss further. - Brownlee 17:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PIB România

Ai timp sǎ te uiţi aici Romania? Eu cred că e mai bine să avem şi estimările, tu ce spui? --Bombonel 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da la PIB-ul Romaniei ma refer. De ce i-au blocat pe ceilalti? --Bombonel 20:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vezi ca am schimbat si populatia din spania asa ca fii cu ochii pe faza si nu-i lasa pe astia sa schimbe. --Bombonel 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cearta

Arthut v-ati ceratat prea urat acolo cu Anittas. Lasa-l in pace ca nu castigam nimic din cearta, le dam motive numai sa nu ne sprijine. Da-i la dracu pe toti, noi sa ne facem treaba. Scrie-mi pe mail, ok? --Bombonel 09:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Arthur vezi bine ce faci de-acum inainte ca nu e bine sa-i enervam prea mult, n-ai scris nimic mai pe mail. --Bombonel 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am surse. --Bombonel 19:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surse PIB

Salut. Văd că ai schimbat PIB-ul pe cap de locuitor la pagina Romania de la $9446 la $10,800. Ai ceva sursă pentru acest număr? FMI-ul estimează că PIB-ul României pe cap de locuitor va fi $9446 în 2006 (acest număr a fost revizuit de la estimarea trecută, când era ceva de gen $8800 pentru 2006). Pentru 2007, proiectarea este de aproximativ $10.100 (FMI). CIA Factbook-ul dă $8400 pentru 2005. Ronline ✉ 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian language

Would you please stop writing in Romanian. This is the English Wikipedia. Your use of Romanian means that the vast majority of readers of this Talk Page have no idea what's being said and so can't contribute. Enough is enough, please stop, Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 08:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive language

Your post at Talk:Romanians is removed. Please speak calmly. `'mikka (t) 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio images

Please do not upload images that are copyrighted by others... I'm talking about pictures such as Image:Bucharestimage2.750pix.jpg, which are from aboutromania.com. The site claims: "Copyright 2000-2006 by Tatiana Murzin. All rights reserved" bogdan 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:RoAmfestival.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RoAmfestival.750pix.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah!

Well, most of my ancestors left when it was still part of Hungary, but my great-grandfather, who was Jewish, was fluent in Hungarian and Romanian. I'm related to Ernie on my great-grandmother's side, however.

—Khoikhoi 02:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Popovici

I thought you should know that I changed the article Paul Popovici to redirect to Paul Popowich. I also changed his ethnicity from Romanian to Ukrainian/Slovakian, because that is in fact his heritage.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get the information about his name and heritage? I've never heard of him credited by that name.

Cheers, ... discospinster _talk 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian-French

Well done article. I took the liberty of adding a link to it from Category:Romanian-French people, though a very short introduction might be useful there, and also from Demographics of France. Equendil Talk 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hi. Both User:NorbertArthur and User:ArthurNorbert have been blocked for one month, as it has been shown by CheckUser that the IPs User:70.49.77.199 and User:70.48.95.223 were yours, both of them making significant personal attacks on Jmabel's user page (see 1, 2, 3. You have also used these IPs to edit articles that you have then signed under your username, thus providing a link to your user account. This link has been confirmed by CheckUser (to show that, under this account, you have edited from the above IPs). For more information about this case, see here. If you would further information, in either Romanian or English, or would like to appeal the block, you can do so at any time by contacting me at rowikipedia at yahoo.com. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 02:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Just to be clear, I make no comment and profess no opinion whatsoever on whether any of the people who are not on the list are Romanian-Americans or not, and the same for all the other ethnicity pages that I've similarly gone over. All I'm saying by putting them on discussion is that they need a good source that (in this case) describes them as Romanian-American or Romanian. Thank you for finding sources, though! Mad Jack 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:6830814IdvKRYuRNT_ph.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:6830814IdvKRYuRNT_ph.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago, Illinois

Hope I am speaking to the right person (given that I am getting only an anon IP user signing as NorbertArthur). Anyways, there is an article called Demographics of Chicago. Also, there is no mention in the source that Chicago has the third largest Romanian population in the U.S. (it only provided an absolute number). At the same time, since this article is under peer review, it is better not to list every ethnic group within the main Chicago article (given that the demographics sub-article is available). Otherwise, that gives others the justification to add anything, even if the addition pertains to something very insignificant. Pentawing^Talk 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Romanians

It's difficult to say what a Romanian is. There are many former Romanian citizens that are in fact Jews, or other. And even among what you would call "ethnic Romanians", there are that don't want to be called "Romanian" because they are sometimes ashamed. For the wrong reasons, of course (says me), but nonetheless, if a person chooses to be American and not Romanian, then we cannot count it any more. Finally, are Moldovans Romanians? I would say yes, but some of them would say no, and then I can do nothing more.

This is to say that the figures you are talking about are evolving slowly, and it's normal. Dpotop 08:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multumesc pentru referinta la mo.wiki. Era urgent. Am postat-o si pe en.wiki, si pe ro.wiki. Dpotop 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the population of Romania is decreasing at an alarming rate. Just like in Russia, the Baltic states, and much of Central and Western Europe (except that Romania is not an immigration country, so that population decrease cannot be compensated like this). I believe this is **THE** major problem in Europe today. Dpotop 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spune-mi si mie ce se intampla cu node asta si cu votul de la mo-wiki. daca vrei du-te la pagina mea, gaseste linkul la toti utilizatorii care vor unirea cu moldova si roagai si pe ei sa participe la vot fiindca ei sigur o sa voteze impotriva lui. hai noroc. Dapiks 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut. Din cate mi-am dat eu seama -> votul acela e o bataie de joc. Auzi ce regule a facut Node asta (care a propos nu are nici un drept sa decida de unu singur procedeul de vot):

1) votul se face de pe o zi pe alta (nicaieri la wikipedia nu a mai existat asa ceva - voturile de obicei aici dureaza cel putin 2 sapt.)
2) voteaza doar cei care au 3 contributii in ultimele 14 zile (cum poate sa fie chestia asta cand mo.wiki a fost propusa pentru stergere?)
3) se pot inscrie numai cei care au peste 100 de contributii la activ (adica numai el)

Personal cred ca noi trebuie sa ne mobilizam aici si sa prezentam chestia asta ce pe o manipulare grosolana, ceea ce si e. Nu stiu ce sprijin putem avea de la toti wikipedistii romani. Ronline, de ex, e foarte pasiv si el vrea doar sa para "moderat", chit ca altii bat joc de tara lui. In plus de asta lui Ronline nici nu-i prea pasa de moldoveni deci pentru el moldovenii sunt alt popor si vorbesc maldavineshte. Am incercat sa vorbesc cu AdiJapan care deja e si el acolo pe site-ul ala. Tre' sa ne strangem cat mai multi ( eu zic ca cei care sunt unionisti sunt cei mai buni candidati) si tre' sa ne adunam pe site-ul acela si sa-i aratam ca nu are nici un suporter si daca va fi nevoie, probabil va trebui sa si instiintam vre-un admin, inainte ca el sa se duca si sa zica "ca a fost ales sysop".

De asemenea a inceput un vot la meta pentru stergerea wikipediei moldovenesti. Node ue a adunat toti rusii si deci acum votul e 31 pentru stergere si 42 (din cauza rusilor) pentru pastrare. Du-te si voteaza si tu aici[1]

Daca mai stii alti utilizatori romani-unionisti trimite-le acest link sa stie si ei care-i situatia. Numai bine.

Dapiks 00:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NorbertArthur te-ai dus gresit

Cand ai mers sa votezi la votul de me meta[2], nu trebuia sa mergi la strong strong oppose. asta Inseamna ca esti puternic puternic impotriva stergerii adica pentru a pastrarii. Trebuia sa mergi la suport - adica esti pentru stergerea lui mo.wiki.Dapiks 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apropo, te rog nu-i insulta pe cei vare au votat contra utilizând cuvinte atât de dure, şi să nu mai faci astfel de generalizări de tipul: "împuţiţi from Moldova and Moldovan nationalists that spit on their ROMANIAN CULTURE, LANGUAGE AND HISTORY. Thi smakes no sense to be here. Just the Russians suckers are supporting this, and some retarded Romanians." TSO1D 02:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tocmai voiam sa iti spun acelasi lucru: ai votat gresit, iar textul e agresiv. Iti sugerez sa il stergi, lasand numai votul. E suficient. Dpotop 08:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laz?

Image:Laz1.750pix.jpg has a caption of Laz on Romania. Can you specify the subject of the picture in the caption and image summary? TransUtopian 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

Edit summaries like this are unacceptable. abakharev 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Boian1.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Boian1.750pix.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bacau_hotel.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bacau_hotel.750pix.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pano of Montreal image

Hi, I noticed you replaced my pano with yours - that's fine, but it might not be a bad idea to crop the image (vertically) Chensiyuan 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. . You have been blocked for 48h for [this edit summary. Please do not do it again abakharev 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Sighişoara city.750pix.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sighişoara city.750pix.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jkelly 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jkelly 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several others have also been listed. Jkelly 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Cluj-Napocaphoto.750pix.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Cluj-Napocaphoto.750pix.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Jkelly 20:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several others have also been listed. Jkelly 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania - Featured Article

Chiar nu vad de ce imaginile pe care tu le-ai facut ar fi incalificalibe, dar imaginile luate de pe [[3]] au Copyright. Citat din pagina " Copyright 2000-2006 by Tatiana Murzin-Bencovski. All rights reserved. ". Ar trebui gasite alte imagini. Ai putea inlocui unele imagini de pe aboutromania.com cu altele facute de tine. Sau am putea cauta pee web pt. imagini fara copyright. -Danielsavoiu 07:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Brasov0144.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brasov0144.750pix.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ce mai faci Norbert? esti napoi pe wikipedia (BaNaTeaN 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

sint bine Norbert. vreau ca sa lucram impreuna ca sa facem articolul romanians mai bun. Eu nu pot sa cred ca sint doar 21 millioane de romanii. Trebe sa fie minim 28-29 millione. Tu ce zici?

Putna

Salut. Aveţi cumva vreo evidenţă că Mănăstirea Putna e un loc de patrimoniu mondial? Nu apare pe lista de pe site-ul lor, de exemplu. Biruitorul 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N-am idee de ce v-au scos pozele. Oricum, dacă vă duceţi la [4], veţi vedea că Putna de fapt nu este una din bisericile de pe listă. Ar trebui să fie acolo, dar nu e. Deci sper că nu vă supăraţi dacă o şterg sau, dacă vreţi, puteţi apela la alt român pentru confirmare despre ce-am zis. Biruitorul 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bancila

The Alex Bancila article has been created and deleted multiple times, and is about to be deleted again. Each time the content has been the same: he's a Canadian of Romanian heritage who supports Amnesty International. It's not enough to remotely meet WP:BIO. What has he done? What makes him important? Millions of people support AI; how is he different? As long as the article keeps getting recreated without anything to support notability, it will keep getting deleted, and sooner or later the page will be protected against re-creation. Fan-1967 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted pictures

Regarding "your" pictures, you were warned about this quite some time ago. These pictures were copyright violations and must remain deleted. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Blocked - legal or personal threat against another user

As a result of your comments made at User talk:Fang Aili—namely this edit—you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of time, for posting what could be seen as a threat against another user on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not tolerate such actions. Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user, are immediately blocked.

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats for more information.

—Mets501 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Autostrada_Soarelui.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Autostrada_Soarelui.750pix.jpg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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[5]. 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 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Mihai Maghiaru

Hi. I would like to question the notability of the article Mihai Maghiaru, particularly since it offers no references. Maghiaru cannot be regarded as a "politician", but rather as a community leader. Additionally, he is not the head of the "Romanian Community of Australia", but of a private organisation known as ARA (Asociaţia Românilor din Australia); there are tens of Romanian community organisations in Australia, as apparent from a web search. I'm generally inclusionist in my leanings, so I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the article, but I do think that it needs to be rewritten in order to make it more accurate (at the moment, it seems that Maghiaru is somehow the leader of all Romanians in Australia, and is involved in Australian politics). The article is also very short, and thus it probably would not pass through AfD at the moment. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 15:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, nu cred că e justificat răspunsul tău. Dacă eu acum aplic pentru acel articol să fie şters, şansele sunt că va fi şters, fiind că nu este în linie cu criteriile de "notabilitate" şi are statut de substub. Deci, eu doar vreau să ajut. Deja am corectat greşelile din articol, dar fiind că tu l-ai început, am vrut să te contactez despre cum se poate îmbunătăţi. Şi conform politicii Wikipedia, sursele sunt obligatorii în articole.

Ronline ✉ 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship issue and brackets

I have two requests from you. One is for you to stop adding "Romanian-something" to articles whose subjects have not been citizens of "something country"; otherwise, you'll be providing misleading information.Secondly: we have approached the topis of how family names go first in brackets - for the very obvious reason that they are to be ordered by family name inside categories (click on any category any note how entries are ordered by first letter by default; now, if you have seen a dictionary before, I assume you know that articles on persons who have family names are ordered by... well... family name). Let's not have this conversation again. Dahn 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... you are not really litterate,. I kinda figured the first thirteen times you were not able to understand a simple request, but I thought I'd give it one more shot. Just how much do you want to get banned? Write me one more message like that, and I'll see to it that it happens as soon as possible. If you have the indecency to respond to common criticism with disgusting displays of ineptitude and primitive thinking, I think your contributions (valueless and of spam value under any circumstance) can be deleted on sight. Dahn 00:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seek professional help. Dahn 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by Repeated personal attacks. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. abakharev 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree images (October 10)

I have listed the images Image:Prejmer fortress.750pix.jpg, Image:Jebuc.750pix.jpg, Image:Montroyalview.jpg, Image:Bucskyscrp.750pix.jpg, Image:Romaniandayfestival.750pix.jpg, Image:AradUnirii.750pix.jpg, Image:Laz1.750pix.jpg and Image:Brasov14.750pix.jpg on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, since, given your other image contributions, I'm finding it hard to believe that you've really taken all these images yourself. In addition, I've also listed Image:BrasovROmania 45.750pix.jpg and Image:RomanianCarpati.750pix.jpg, since I haven't been able to locate any statement at http://www.poze-romania.ro/ that would support your claim that these images are free.

Since you are currently blocked from editing, you won't be able to comment on the nomination at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images directly. I would therefore ask you to present your side here instead; I have added a note to the nomination advising people to look here for your comments. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buna. Imi pare bine sa reluam legatura. In ceea ce priveste numarul romanilor, chestia este foarte complicata si trebuie sa fim atenti ca sa nu umflam numarul prea tare. Nu prea ne ajuta nici faptul ca oficial nu exista nici un document dupa care sa ne bazam. In primul rand trebuie sa vedem cum definim termenul "roman". Romanii pot fi ori 1) "numai cetatenii Romaniei", ori 2) "cei de etnie romana" (deci includem si pe cei care nu mai traiesc in romania si care provin din familii mixte - poate au chiar numai un bunic roman, fara ca ei sa se considere neaparat romani) sau 3) "cei care tin la valorile romanesti si vorbesc limba romana ca limba materna" (o definitie care o regasim inca din secolul 19). Daca stai si te gandesti, ultima definitie are si cel mai mult sens fiindca, de cele mai multe ori, o limba comuna sta la baza unui popor. Pentru mine personal, cine nu vorbeste limba romana, nu poate fi roman, chiar daca are origini romanesti. Prin urmare, Canada si SUA au cam atati romani cati s-au declarat la recensamant. Sigur vor aparea surse care vor ridica numarul romanilor la 1.2 mil dar in primul rand sursele astea iau in considerare romanii care deja au fost asimilati (sau cei care sunt a 3-ea generatie aici), plus persoane de alte etnii care vin din Romania, fara ca ele sa se considere neaparat romani. Eu am pus numarul de 28 de mil fiindca asa a declarat Base, si dupa cum stim din constitutie, el face politica externa a Romaniei. Nu stiu cum a socotit el acest numar si pe ce baza a determinat el ca numarul celor din afara e 8 mil. Intr-un alt articol, Base schimba din 8 si face 12, ca apoi sa se razgandeasca din nou. In orice caz, as vrea sa vad sursele tale, si chiar si sa discut cu tine pe tema asta. Dapiks 05:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In ceea ce priveste Polonezii din America, sa stii ca e o mica diferenta intre ei si Romanii din USA. La polonezi, se vede cum 10 milioane dintre ei s-au declarat de origine Poloneza la ultimul recensamant din SUA, de aceea pe wikipedia, nici nu le este greu sa aduca surse si dovezi convingatoare. La noi lucrurile nu stau chiar asa fiindca in cazul Romanilor doar 380.000-390.000 s-au declarat de origine romana. In Canada, 60.000 au declarat ca sunt romani iar 70.000 ca sunt din familii mixte. Deci in toata america de nord, is putin peste 500.000. Bine, asta era in 2001 si nu avem de unde afla cum e situatia acum. Normal ca s-au mai inmultit. Acum sa-ti spun drept cand am venit eu in Montreal in 1999, nu erau decat 3 biserici, iar acum dupa cum vezi is cam 7. Deci asta arata intr-un fel ca romanii se inmultesc destul de repede aici. Si nici nu e de mirare: pai gandeste-te ca in Canada cica vin 5.500 de romani pe an (si sa presupunem ca 1/4 dintre ei vin in Montreal). Uite aici sursa [6](dupa limba) si [7] (dupa tara). In 2000, oficial vorbind, imi aduc aminte cum Gazeta de Montreal dadea niste cifre despre limbile vorbite pe insula si Romanii figurau pe locul 15 sau cam asa ceva cu 6500 de vorbitori. Deci daca adaugi 1/4 din 5500 * 7 ani la cei 6500, ajungi la o cifra care se apropie de 15.000 de romani pe insula. Chestia este ca va trebui sa asteptam pana la urmatorul recensamant ca sa putem dovedi chestia asta. Dapiks 04:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut. Pai hai sa vedem mai bine. Daca o sa dai Pagini Romanesti ca sursa pentru Wikipedia, mai mult ca sigur ca o sa fie reverted (de "prietenii" nostrii care mereu is vigilenti cand vine vorba de articole legate de romania) fiindca nimeni nu o sa ia pagini romanesti in serios. Nu am nimic cu Pagini Romanesti dar trebuie sa recunoastem ca orice organizatie culturala are tot interesul sa mai umfle oleaca de la ea ca sa para ca reprezinta o comunitate mai mare. Eu ma iau dupa datele oficiale: Oficial in 2000 erau 6500 de vorbitori de limba romana in Montreal. Poate ca erau mai multi dar nu s-au declarat deci inseamna ca ori au renuntat la limba romana in casa, ori nu au vrut pur si simplu sa spuna ca sunt romanofoni. Dar asta e alegerea lor. Tot din datele oficiale stim ca din 2000 si pana acum au venit cam 5.500 de romani pe an (chestia asta nu poate sa fie gresita ca doar canada nu ar ascunde numarul real de imigranti si datele despre ei). Deci prin urmare la cei 131.000 de romani (cat erau in 2001), acum sunt cam 160.000. In ceea ce priveste insula Montreal, eu doar am presupus ca in montreal emigreaza 1/4 din romanii noi veniti. De aceea am facut calculul 6500 + 5500/4 * 7 ani = 15.000-16.000. Nu prea stiu exact care ar fi numarul exact. Se poate foarte bine sa fie 1/2 din cei 5500 si atunci ne apropiem de o cifra mai exacta ca a ta (25.000) sau se poate foarte bine sa fie mai putini de 1/4. In orice caz dupa cum ti-am mai zis, in 2007 vor aparea datele de la recensamantul din 2006 si mai mult ca sigur ca numarul romanilor va creste. Dapiks 05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Ok, you can unblock me I promise to do not do again personnal attacks. And block me if i'll do others. Arthur

I've unblocked you. Khoi khoi 04:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Khoi khoi 04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Romanian language

Will you please stop writing lengthy chunks of this page in your native language. This is the English Wikipedia so most of us have not the faintest idea what you are writing. It's discourteous to the majority of your readers - Adrian Pingstone 09:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanii din Canada - Continuare

Salut. Recensamintele in Canada sunt cam ciudate. 20% din cetateni sau rezidenti primesc acasa un formular lung unde scriu acolo tot (ca in Romania). Restul de 80% primesc versiunea scurta pe care ai primit-o si tu. Acealasi formular scurt am avut si eu. Dar din cate imi aduc eu aminte parca acolo era trecut limba vorbita in casa si locul de nastere. Dapiks 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Arthur! --212.138.64.172 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing and personal attacks

Please stop swearing and personal attacks. If you continue doing this, you'd most likely get banned and this time for good. bogdan 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are you of Hungarian ancestry? Your middle name means "great" in Hungarian... Khoi khoi 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you have your name backwards—just like Hungarians? ;-) Khoi khoi 02:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind man, la revedere. Khoi khoi 04:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand everything. I was just saying, you know Hungarian people have their family name come first, and their given name come last? For example, László Tőkés writes his name as Tőkés László. That's why I thought you were of partial Hungarian ancestry or something; didn't mean to offend you or anything... Khoi khoi 04:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. No problem! I just read Family name#Romania, by the way. Khoi khoi 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Despite the warning above and despite your promise (as noted by KhoiKhoi in the unblock log) you are still using offensive and foul language. You are reblocked for the last long term. `'mikkanarxi 21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And per the consensus at WP:AN/I, I've extended your block to indefinite. Khoi khoi 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NorbertArthur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Never again shall I make personal attacks, offensive, foul language, or anything else. I will be a good boy, and no longer insult people here. If you will unblock me never again shall I upset anyone!

Decline reason:

I currently cannot accept your promise on good faith considering the personal attacks made today by your sockpuppet Gassbiggs (talk • contribs). -- Netsnipe ► 03:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why did you make this unblock request with an alternate account (which needs blocking as a community block evasion account, note to admins)?[8] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me guys, but is not me that wrote that, I swear, I did not had any idea about what is happening here, so don't accuse me rapidly of ur fuckin evasion before proove that, understood?? Arthur 3 December 2006

Allow me to cite this as extra proof for the admins. Dahn 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RO-Am_soldiers.750pix.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RO-Am_soldiers.750pix.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM former destinations

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article TAROM former destinations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Alvestrand 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria

I am sorry, but I did not notice the last message that you sent me on 16th April, I saw it just now. I will answer your questions, nut I don't know whether you will receive them here, so I will wait for a sign from you before answering that: ) Once again I am so sorry for that; I think that there should be an orange thing on your screen when you receive a message, but I haven't seen it... Best, --Gligan 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Liaroberts.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Liaroberts.750pix.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello NorbertArthur! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 295 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Lia Roberts - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ovidiu Baciu

The article Ovidiu Baciu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cannot find any sources to verify the content or prove notability. In any case, mayors of small municipalities don't meet WP: POLITICIAN requirements

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

Bună! I've been working to set up the WikiProject Dacia to organize better the articles about Dacia and improve their quality. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Maybe you find it interesting and wish to join. Thanks and best regards! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]