Welcome!

Hello, Rgvis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt ( talk) 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Your recent chain of edits and revers to the Iaşi International Airport article have been undone. If you have a problem with the way the Bucharest Airport name is written in the airline list, then please discuss it at the appropriate place. The Iaşi International Airport airticle is not the place to discuss that matter because it relates to the airport in Bucharest. Thank you. Please also bear in mind that Wikipedia follows the principle of commonality for the purpose of place names. As a result, the term used in the English Wikipedia for a place. person, object, or building may differ from its official name or its name in the local language. Each language variant of Wikipedia considers the most common terminology in that language to be supreme. There are several examples of this, for instance (Kiev/Kyiv, Ministro Pistarini/Ezezia, Burma/Myanmar, etc). That is not to say any one of the variants are wrong. In any event, please present your suggestion at the OTP discussion page, obtain editor consensus (which may not happen for the reasons of popularity outlined above), and then go ahead and make the change - across the board - if indeed you have consensus. 124.247.221.146 ( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• this isnt the place for your tantrum... discuss it at the bucharest airport page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.148.197 ( talk) 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I came here from the WP:3O page. It's difficult to see the content of the objection to changing the name to Henri Coandă Airport. The appeal to the rules doesn't make much sense to me either, in general, discussions of this type can occur where ever they first come up. You might as well thrash it out here, than anywhere else. Please explain the content of your objection in detail, and forget about where to have the discussion. BTW, I have been through the airport and the only name I saw had "Henri Coandă" in it, but you folks are probably more expert on it than I. So please just focus on content and decide this rather minor issue between the two of you. Smallbones ( talk) 14:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I have tried to explain to the user many times: "The Iaşi International Airport airticle is not the place to discuss that matter because it relates to the airport in Bucharest. Thank you. Please also bear in mind that Wikipedia follows the principle of commonality for the purpose of place names. As a result, the term used in the English Wikipedia for a place. person, object, or building may differ from its official name or its name in the local language. Each language variant of Wikipedia considers the most common terminology in that language to be supreme. There are several examples of this, for instance (Kiev/Kyiv, Ministro Pistarini/Ezezia, Burma/Myanmar, etc). That is not to say any one of the variants are wrong. In any event, please present your suggestion at the OTP discussion page, obtain editor consensus (which may not happen for the reasons of popularity outlined above), and then go ahead and make the change - across the board - if indeed you have consensus"

That's the way it works. No one's contesting the validity of the change. But making a selective change, when it has a larger impact, at the incorrect place, is not the way to do things.

In any case, using the Buenos Aires example, one of its airport is officially called "Ministro Pistarini Airport" and the article is titled the same. But in destination lists it's written as Buenos Aires-Ezeiza. That does not mean either is incorrect. Its just the way it's written, considering commonality in English.

124.247.221.146 ( talk) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Please sign in - it is difficult to keep straight who is who otherwise.

Also I will repeat - the editors are allowed to discuss it here - there is no rule that I know of that says discussions have to occur at specific places. This seems to be the most convenient for this page.

The phrase "Please also bear in mind that Wikipedia follows the principle of commonality for the purpose of place names" does not compute for me. Cite a policy or WP:MOS please. Since I can't figure out what you are talking about, I cannot respond. "Commonality in English" is not a common English phrase. Can you express this in a more idiomatic form?

I'll suggest that you simply ask the other editor to do a series of steps which do not include a) discuss this somewhere else, or b) do not make the name change. Smallbones ( talk) 03:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This case is similar to Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport#Renaming renamed, in 2004, from Montréal Dorval International Airport or Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport, renamed in 1974 from Roissy Airport (still occasionally used). That is what I have tried to explain for one month (with all evidences brought here).

I consider that the name, in this example discussed here, does not have anything to do with being an English term or not, nobody asked to use Bucureşti instead Bucharest while Henri Coandă is a person's name (the same for Pierre Elliott Trudeau or Charles de Gaulle).

I, also, agree that changes have to be made everywhere and not only here (and I can start doing this, there is no problem for me). Rgvis ( talk) 09:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hei, Rgvis, I wasn't the ironic guy in the Dacia article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.240.154 ( talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The general title for the D-436 engine in English, as on http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Aero-Engines/Ivchenko-Progress-D-436-Ukraine.html and http://www.deagel.com/Turbofan-Engines/D-436-148B_a001766003.aspx, is Ivchenko-Progress D-436. While this may not be the name you are used to, we need to stick with the most common title in English. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 08:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The links you provided in the CF34 article don't address this issue, only thatsome variants are produced by Motor Sich. That will be covered when we finally get an article on the engine. - BilCat ( talk) 08:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Please, review the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Wait for an answer (in a reasonable period of time) and do not revert references, it is considered against the rules! Thank you, ( Rgvis ( talk) 09:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) reply

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to General Electric CF34, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. Dave1185 ( talk) 10:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Excuse me??!!! What do you mean?

This is how you try to improve that page? I think, you guys are losing touch with reality!!

The same advise for you, Dave1185, please, review the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

This is not the way to solve a problem!!!

( Rgvis ( talk) 11:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) reply

Progress Design Bureau (former OKB-478) is not a manufacturer, it is a designer of engines and its creations are manufactured by different production units (companies) from former USSR. In this case, for exemple, D-436 is produced by Motor Sich Company (from the same city in Ukraine, Zaporizhia) (D-436 T1/T2/TP/148 versions), Moscow Machine Building Production Plant "Salut" (D-436T1/TP/148 versions) and Ufa Engine Industrial Association (UMPO) (D-436T1 version) (from Russia).

References:

http://www.motorsich.com/eng/products/aircraft/tde

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=666

http://www.umpo.ru/en/Good435_139_112.aspx

Versions:

- D 436 T1 for Tu-334-100, Yak-42D-100

- D 436 T2 for Tu-334-100D, Tu-334-200

- D 436 T3 for Tu-230 (under development)

- D 436 TP for Be-200, Be-200ES

- D 436-148 for An-148

References:

http://www.tupolev.ru/english/Show.asp?SectionID=111

http://www.beriev.com/eng/core_e.html

http://www.antonov.com/products/air/air-liner/AN-148/index.xml

In all situations you will see that the name used for this engine is "D-436" or "Progress D-436". Today, the official name of the design house is, indeed, "Academician Alexander Georgiyevich Ivchenko" Progress Zaporozhye Machine-Building Design Bureau in the memory of the former chief designer and manager of Progress ZMKB (Zaporozhye Machine-Building Design Bureau).

http://www.zmkb.com/

http://www.ivchenko-progress.com/

During the time when Ivchenko was the main designer (1945 – 1968) the engines used to be named after him, for example Ivchenko AI-25. After this period of time engines designed bore the name of the company, for example "Progress D-18" or more simple "D-18".

To avoid and not make a confusion with engines designed by Alexander Ivchenko, my proposal is to be used Progress D-436 as name of this type of engine, instead of "Ivchenko-Progress D-436" (which is not, anyhow, incorrect too).

So, BilCat and Dave1185, this is how I expect and consider to have a dialogue based on arguments with civilized and educated persons.

( Rgvis ( talk) 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) reply

In the interest of peace and co-operation, Progress D-436 is acceptable for now. We'll continue to discuss this with other editors, and come to a consensus later, which may or may not agree with either of our chosen preferred titles. - BilCat ( talk) 18:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, Rgvis Just so you'd know, your behaviour and attitude when addressing a fellow editor on Wikipedia isn't exactly Assuming Good Faith (AGF) to me as you sound very defensive and perhaps you are in need of taking a break to see how your behaviour is affecting Wikipedia. Regardless of Bill's stand on the matter with the engine mentioned above, it is not appropriate to add a red-link for a non-existing article on Wikipedia unless it is notable or you are about to write it for addition into other article pages at a later time. Mass spam adding of the same red link to several articles is very disruptive to the well being of Wikipedia and may result in you getting a BLOCKED.

Secondly, if a discussion has started on another page then you have to focus on that page instead of going all over the place and SPAM other editor's user/talk page with the exact same reply you had given on the original page. SPAMMING is considered as very rude and could result in you getting a BLOCK by an admin if anyone were to report you for such disruptive behaviour. I have refrained from reporting you this time as I am Assuming good faith to you but if you carry on to be so rude, obnoxious and not assuming good faith, then you have yourself to blame when I do report. You have been warned! -- Dave1185 ( talk) 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Good Evening, Dave1185,

What are you talking about, what "Mass spam"?

Are You Threatening Me? Feel free to report me!

Am I rude? How? What did I say?

When you say: "you are in need of taking a break" how it is? This is personal attack!

Anyway, I observe that you are not an impartial editor. Your first warning about "spam" is an Overreaction, those links were NOT SPAMS at all!!! They were only intended for the period of time of my responding, trying to stop illogical reverting. Did you ever read the "Revision history of General Electric CF34" to understand something?

It's a Nonsense your reaction, that's why I have doubts in your good faith.

Are you and BilCat the same person?

( Rgvis ( talk) 20:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) reply

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. This is my final warning to you for what you had SPAMMED on the discussion page of Bill and my page as well. Read also: Wikipedia:Linkspam#How not to be a spammer. -- Dave1185 ( talk) 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Rgvis you appear to have provoked some editors by your actions. I would rather see co-operation than for you to have a page full of warnings. Both BilCat and Dave1185 are experienced editors and dont add warnings to user pages just on a whim. You obviously have knowledge that can help the aero-engine project, can I ask that you discuss changes with the aero-engines task force rather than reversions on article pages. I am sure if you get a disagreement about aero-engines or if you have any ideas for improvement it is better discuss it first. It may not seem it at the moment but the aero-engine task force editors I am sure would work with you if you enter into a constructive discussion with them. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with MilborneOne. While I am not involved in this article, I wish to state that as a general rule, it is best to maintain a constructive and cooperative spirit on all articles. If you truly don't understand what the other editors are talking about, consider making a constructive and civil request for them to explain. I am sure you can make a valuable contribution to this and other pages, so keep trying! -- Matheuler 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your opinions,

I do agree with you (when you say "co-operation"). When I said "I don't understand the reaction of Dave1185" it was something more like a question (maybe rhetorical one) regarding his reaction and what I consider being a personal attack.

I will bring a timeline (the normal text is from "General Electric CF34" page, the bold text is from my personal page) to see the successions of the events:

07:49, 10 August 2009 Rgvis (talk | contribs) (4,144 bytes) (→See also: Developed by Progress ZMKB Design Bureau, produced by Motor-Sich)

07:51, 10 August 2009 Rgvis (talk | contribs) (4,144 bytes) (→See also: alphabetical order)

07:55, 10 August 2009 BilCat (talk | contribs) m (4,148 bytes) (Reverted edits by Rgvis (talk) to last version by BilCat)

07:57, 10 August 2009 BilCat (talk | contribs) (4,148 bytes) (Clean-up/corrections - it might be nice if you'd let the rest of us in on the history you're working from - I can't find any myself beyond the current company article)

08:13, 10 August 2009 Rgvis (talk | contribs) (4,397 bytes) (→See also: If you do not know, please, read the history (before doing anything else))

08:14, 10 August 2009 Rgvis (talk | contribs) (4,425 bytes)

08:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC) The general title for the D-436 engine in English, as on http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Aero-Engines/Ivchenko-Progress-D-436-Ukraine.html and http://www.deagel.com/Turbofan-Engines/D-436-148B_a001766003.aspx, is Ivchenko-Progress D-436. While this may not be the name you are used to, we need to stick with the most common title in English. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

08:23, 10 August 2009 BilCat (talk | contribs) (4,176 bytes) (Please stop changing this - this is the common name in English per reliable English sources)

08:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC) The links you provided in the CF34 article don't address this issue, only thatsome variants are produced by Motor Sich. That will be covered when we finally get an article on the engine. - BilCat (talk)

08:53, 10 August 2009 Rgvis (talk | contribs) (4,425 bytes) (Please review the Five pillars of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Wait for an answer and do not revert references!)

09:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) Please, review the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Wait for an answer (in a reasonable period of time) and do not revert references, it is considered against the rules! Thank you, (Rgvis (talk)

10:23, 10 August 2009 BilCat (talk | contribs) (4,176 bytes) (Undid revision 307129004 by Rgvis (talk) - POV pushing)

10:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to General Electric CF34, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. Dave1185 (talk)

17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC) A word of caution ... Dave1185 (talk)

18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC) This is my final warning to you for what you had SPAMMED on the discussion page of Bill and my page as well. Dave1185 (talk)

18:37, 10 August 2009 BilCat (talk | contribs) (4,167 bytes) (Added link - accepted compromise)

I was in (let's say normal) dispute with BilCat. Where is Dave1185 in this dispute? Nowhere! At 09:03, 10 August 2009, I asked BilCat only to be patience and assume good faith, then, at 10:23, 10 August 2009, BilCat reverted my text. I did nothing, only working to my technical response.

Suddenly, at 10:54, 10 August 2009, I received on my personal talk page a warning message from Dave1185 (first message) with accusations of spamming(!!??) And after that, the next threatening messages and so on (at that moment I had suspected Dave1185 and BilCat being the same user).

Did I provoke Dave1185? I came with arguments and I got offences. I was the one provoked and personal attacked by an "experienced editor"!!

Is it something that is to be accepted on Wikipedia or not? - Rgvis ( talk) 06:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• So why aren't you complaining to the administrator of Wikipedia if you think that I had abused you in anyway? Trying to lure me with this flame-bait statement? Even with your frequently quoted statement of 5 pillars and the the rest, I doubt that you have read and understand the whole picture here. Alright, be my guest go ahead and lodge an official complain. The facts will speak for themselves. -- Dave1185 ( talk) 11:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your response, Dave1185!

Q.E.D. - Quod erat demonstrandum!

For MilborneOne and Matheuler: I think it can be said who's provoking whom! Anyhow, my appetite for contributing to Wikipedia Project is not lost, so, despite obstacles, ... I will keep trying  :-)

( Rgvis ( talk) 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)) reply

• More walk, less talk? Otherwise, hold your peace. -- Dave1185 ( talk) 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I noted you have many edits related to Moldova, which are by far not simply tangential. If you are interested, please consider joining Wikipedia:MDL. Dc76\ ^talk 11:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Rgvis! I have noticed your interested in Romanian Armed Forces - related articles. As a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject and creator of the Romanian Military history task force I invite you to join both our project and task force. Thanks and best regards, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, for Christ, if you're gonna move the entire article (let alone that the previous is by far the more common and has been primarily used for more than a century), would you have the common sense to redirect the redirect titles as well? This is something that wikipedia requires you to consider before planning a move, but you obviously only care about having your way. Please, spend some time considering your moves before you up and do them, because it's not for other users to clean up after you. Dahn ( talk) 20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, since the name of the university is mentioned in templates I see you have even edited yourself recently, did you bother noticing that, unless you change the title in the template as well or pipe the link, you're creating a redirect loop? Again, if you consider a change and it doesn't seem strange to you that nobody hasn't had the same illuminating idea for years now, how's about you take your time to do it properly? Dahn ( talk) 20:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your interest in Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi article,

There is (and will be all the time) a lot of work, of course, which obviously takes time to do it (logical aspect, right?) and Time Zones are not the same for everyone (another logical aspect, right?).

And no, is not only an official name, nowadays the common and most used name is Cuza University.

Why has anybody not changed this page? It would be many possible explanation, but one of these is because there are some persons, here, on Wikidepia Project, who believe that Wikipedia is their own property and act in total disrespect to other contributors, wasting the most precious asset of the latter: (the) time.

If you want to get answers, please reformulate in a civilized manner and reconsider your attitude toward others Wikipedia contributors!

I will not pay attention to and, let me be clear, I will not tolerate any rude and disruptive behavior from anyone regardless of whether he (she) is or is not an "experienced" contributor!

( Rgvis ( talk) 08:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)) reply

Thank you very much for your clean up of this article following my blind merge. Dc76\ ^talk 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

What you are doing is ridiculous your sources is valid about regional GDP but national and EU gdp figures for 2008 have been out for a long time replacing them with those for 2007 is stupid.-- Avidius ( talk) 10:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear friend, it seems like you make a confusion between final data and estimates. For 2008, Eurostat does have only estimates, and not for all countries!

Before doing anything else, please check the Eurostat official website and you will see the press release from 18.02.2010, right on the first page, at the "latest news releases":

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/

Those data are the latest official data, and yes, they are for 2007!

Name it as you like, stupidity or ridiculousness, but this is how Eurostat and statistics work!

( Rgvis ( talk) 11:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

It is you who is confused the press release focuses on the EURO REGONS and for them the information is available only for 2007 , however EU and national level data for 2008 were released long ago and those are not estimates. Check the tables [1].-- Avidius ( talk) 11:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Very well, give me the 2008 data for Greece, Austria, Romania and Slovakia!

( Rgvis ( talk) 11:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

It's in the tables and when some of the country data has a small e,f or p attached to it it is explained what it means- estimate,forecast etc. Most numbers are final and do not have such a small letter attached to them as you can see. So i will update the table for the national GDP and EU GDP with the figures for 2008. If there is no data for some of the countries I will mention 2007 data. And by the way the first column is for nominal GDP not PPP GDP.-- Avidius ( talk) 11:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You see, there is no data for all countries!

On the other hand, why are you reverting the NTUS data in Regional variation, too?

( Rgvis ( talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Yes the Nuts will remain I will update only the first table with EU and national GDP.-- Avidius ( talk) 11:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The data is for 2008 in 99% of the info and it is no excuse to put the 2007 values for all countries just because Greece's values are provisional.

I don't know how your arithmetics is, mine is different :-)

Austria - no data for 2008; Romania - no data for 2008; Slovakia - only estimated value for 2008; Greece - only provisional value for 2008. That means 15% (four countries in 27)!

For 2007, we have all official values, for all 27 countries (Greece included), in the last official Eurostat newsrelease, published 2 days ago, on 18 February 2010 [2]!

( Rgvis ( talk) 12:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Just because the Slovakia GDP per capita is an estimate doesn't mean all countries should gave the 2007 data I told you. And as you can see 99% of the rest is official 2008 so I'd advise you not to change the rest. Sources are official and perfectly in order.-- Avidius ( talk) 12:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please, provide me with the information about the official 2008 values (not estimated, not provisional), using the same source, for the next countries:

1. Austria;

2. Greece;

3. Romania;

4. Slovakia.

( Rgvis ( talk) 13:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

I think the table show it very clearly read it for yourself. Your objections are not enough to change the entire table , not to mention that provisional and estimated values don't differ a lot from the final ones. By the way you've probably heard that Greece for example has been feeding Eurostat with manipulated data so we are likely going to have only Eurostat's estimates and provisional data for that country.-- Avidius ( talk) 13:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

For Wikipedia we need facts, not personal research, not improvisation or speculations!

So, to have a comparison method, we need to use data under the same standard. This is a very, very simple rule!

Once again, in order to provide a comparison image in the same table, we need official final data, for 2008, for the next countries:

1. Austria;

2. Greece;

3. Romania;

4. Slovakia.

If you are not able to provide this information, tell us, and we'll see what it is the best solution in this case.

Your solution might be good, might be not!

Thank you!

( Rgvis ( talk) 14:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

I will not change the table about the regions but the first table about the EU GDP and national GDP should be include the latest information which in this case is for 2008.In March the information for 2009 will also be available so the table will have to be updated. And by the way I have quoted the source to the letter so there is no personal calculations or improvisation, if you are accusing me of that.-- Avidius ( talk) 15:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

My dear friend,

You seem a bit nervous and agitated, nobody is accusing anybody!

We are, many of us, here, interested in making the Wikipedia project a reliable source of information.

Take it easy, :-)

( Rgvis ( talk) 15:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

A tag has been placed on FAUR requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds ( talk) 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, Rgvis

I have accurate data about Constanta City/Urban/Metro/County areas.

Constanta City = 124.89 km2

Constanta Urban (Municipality) = 1121,66 km2

Constanta Metro = 2121,39 km2

Constanta County = 7071 km2

Metropolitan area is 30% of County area. You can visit this site, National Public Administration http://www.administratie.ro/articol.php?id=11706 and you can translate from Romanian this text: "ZMC are o populatie de 500.000 de locuitori (65% din locuitorii judetului) si ocupa 30% din suprafata judetului." Translation is the following: "ZMC (Constanta Metropolitan Area) has a population of 500,000 inhabitants (65% of County residents) and take 30% of the County area." The Constanta County area has 7071 km2, and 30% from this is 2121,39 km2. Is an official statement and it said by the spokesman of Constanta Metropolitan Area association, Mr. Adrian Craciun.

Urban (Municipality) area is much larger than Constanta City because have included the Port of Constanta, industrial and agricultural areas of the City administration. In Romania is the difference between City and Municipality. These are two different things. City is "inside", and Municipality include together City and "outside" industrial and agricultural areas. This is whole territory of the City Hall, but other Villages or Towns are not included!

Changes made by me include accurate information.

-- TAXIcon ( talk) 13:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Rgvis,

You give me nothing! Your sources does not exist! For Constanta metro area your data, respectively 1013.5 km2, is a bulshitt! I have never seen this number before!?

I showed you what Mr. Adrian Craciun said, the spokesman of Constanta Metropolitan Area association: Constanta metro area has 2121,39 km2, respectively 30% from Constanta County area, which is 7071 km2!

Please give me accurate information, a link or anything, about this area, 1013.5 km2 which you say that is Constanta metro area.

-- TAXIcon ( talk) 09:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Last questions for you

Rgvis, please tell me why Varna area is 238 km2 and Bucharest area is only 228 km2?! We know that Bucharest has 2 million inhabitants and Varna only 360,000 inhabitants (but sure is a fake number!)? I know very well Varna and Bucharest too, and the last city is much, much higher! In reality Varna is even smaller than Constanta, you can see and compare on Google map! How can it be Varna twice higher than Constanta?! It is absurd!

Rgvis, where do you live?

-- TAXIcon ( talk) 19:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you

Rgvis,

I have no answer for a question. Where do you live?

Are you Romanian?

Bye!

-- TAXIcon ( talk) 05:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Just want to say about Darjiu article about this edit [3] i think that edit and the presence of the Hungarian names are OK there since there isn`t an article about those particular locations and then we can mention alternative names like that since there isn`t other representation about those locations. Greetings. iadrian ( talk) 12:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Renault Samsung SM5, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Samsung SM5. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi! I added back the head office pic because we need an image to represent the airline head office.

TAROM's headquarters is inside the airport departures terminal, so the HQ is inside the airport. This is unlike other cases where the airline has a dedicated building (Air France, Delta, and several others have on-airport-site HQs that have dedicated buildings) WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:UAIC logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:UAIC logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading File:UAIC logo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Naohiro19 revertvandal ( talk) 08:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi! I saw you moved the List of historical monuments in Romania to National Register of Historic Monuments in Romania. I think is great to have a page talking about the Nation Register, but the original list, was actually a list that I intended to build up and later split by county. I think they can both exist, don't you think. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 16:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I am not planning to add all 29000 projects, but the major ones for each county (10-15 max), with wikilinks to the corresponding articles. I think that is doable and very useful. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 13:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I like your update to the Register. Very cool. Are you Romanian? -- Codrin.B ( talk) 15:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Citation Barnstar
		For finding numerous outstanding refs needed for the Aerostar article. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note - "credit where credit is due"! - Ahunt ( talk) 10:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The problem with the S-comma is this: I did an unscientific survey. I checked out the page, "Iași", on 14 computers (friends, family and work) including speaking on the phone with 3 friends who lived in different countries. 2 people were using Foxfire - the S-comma looked OK on one of them. On the other 12 computers, all using MS Internet Explorer, only one looked OK. All of the others showed an S-comma that was 2/3 the size of the surrounding letters. A funny looking, little runt of a character. That is why I switched the S-comma to S-cedilla. My change was subsequently reverted.

I, personally, have now installed the Microsoft EU font update even though I don't live in the EU. The S-comma now looks OK on my computer.

Which is better, going around the world and upgrading everyone's computer or using the (not truly Romanian) S-cedilla so that everyone can read the article without being distracted by the cartoon-like S-comma that shows up? You really need to see just how ridiculous it looks!

One solution is to use the S-comma in all Romanian (language) Wikipedia articles (and for that matter all other languages of the EU). As for English Wikipedia articles, maybe we should use the S-cedilla for a few more years until the majority of computers in the (non-EU) English-speaking world are naturally upgraded.

Or how about this: At the top of articles which include the S-comma, put a notice: "This article uses the letter 'S-comma' which is not supported by older versions of Windows. If the letter 'S-comma' appears smaller than the other letters, kindly install the Microsoft EU font update" -- @Efrat ( talk) 05:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

If you look at the "View history" tab for the page Timișoara, you will see that the edit history is no longer connected with the page. It looks to me like you did a cut-and-paste move, which is not the correct way to move the page to maintain the edit history (see Wikipedia:Moving a page#Page histories). We should undo your move and ask an admin to do it using a move request (see WP:RM). -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 08:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I undid your moves so the page rename can be done properly. Please use WP:RM. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 09:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Rgvis, I do not know how many Romanian related articles this move rationale would apply to, but you might find it more productive for the community to have the move debate once through the use of the multiple moves request, instead of having individual debates. As an admin who gets involved in closing move discussions (and then having to make moves), it would be much more productive to make this S-comma, T-Comma decision once and have it applied to all appropriate articles. Depending on the scope of the potential changes, you might also consider starting an WP:RFC within Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania to gain a wider consensus for all the moves. If this was done prior to a multiple move request, then hopely the consensus generated during the RFC would make the RM discussion pro forma.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. In Culture of Romania, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Moldavian ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

-- Codrin.B ( talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletion of Seven hills of Iași‎

The article Seven hills of Iași‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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.

Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvrous ( talk)

No reason for deletion (instead of improving it); WP:DEV,

Thanks, ( Rgvis ( talk) 13:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)) reply

You're right, I may have rushed to delete it, but I am still concerned about its notability. There is nothing in that article about the hills themselves, but about how the city is organised around them. Seeing as there are no references currently, and I can't find any online sources on the history of the hills, would you be opposed to a redirection to the main page? Silvrous ( talk) 14:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Also, regarding the latin quote by Ovid in the Iași article, as per MOS:QUOTE, foreign-language quotations, there must be an English version of the quote. In this case, I believe the best approach would be to have both the translated text and the original, but if a translation is not available, then it would be better for the quote not to be included rather than violate the Manual of Style. Silvrous ( talk) 14:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

There is no reason to redirect the Seven hills of Iași‎ page; but, you can add a Refimprove template, if you wish (and, it definitely would be considered a constructive editing process).

As for Latin quotes, considered that Latin is a classical language (and not a common foreign language), a (correct) translation would be the most viable solution (and, someday, someone skilled with Latin translation will solve it).

Thanks, ( Rgvis ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)) reply

Regarding the Latin quote, there appears to be no reference whatsoever online, except as text copied from either the Romanian or English version of Wikipedia. Silvrous ( talk) 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Nevermind, it's solved. Silvrous ( talk) 17:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Emblemauaic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iași may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |students = 16,382 (<small>(2012-2013)</small><ref name="about">[http://www.tuiasi.ro/admitere/de-ce-tuiasi About

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. There is a debate at Template:Infobox automobile whether to change the title style from how it has been so far, from outside the infobox to the inside. If you consider that it should remain outside the infobox (as in Template:Infobox company for example), please express your opinion at Template talk:Infobox automobile. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar ( talk) 10:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moldavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carte Românească de Învăţătură ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metropolis of Moldavia and Bukovina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Franz Joseph University, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Thehoboclown ( talk) 18:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter Mogila may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• image/serban/RA%201%202009/10%20bosomitu,%20stefan.pdf Testamentul], p.129, at arhivelenationale.ro {{Ro icon}}</ref><ref>Ştefan S. Gorovei, Miscellanea, [http://adxenopol.academiaromana-is.ro/aiix.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romani people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Greek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Duchy of Bukovina may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Ukrainians]] (at that time referred to as [[Ruthenians]]) from [[Galicia (Central Europe)|Galicia]]), as well as Romanians from [[Transylvania]].<ref name="jewishgen">''[http://www.jewishgen.org/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove links to deletion discussions, as you have done twice at Category:Romanian timelines. If you object to deletion, the way to respond is to state your reasons on the discussion page, which is linked from the deletion notice.

In this case the discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_18#Category:Romanian_timelines.

If you remove the deletion template again, it will be considered disruptive editing and could lead to loss of editing privileges. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Logo Cahul.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Florence Peretola Airport, without any reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.-- The aviation user. Zurich00swiss ( talk) 17:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Istanbul Atatürk Airport. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jetstreamer  ^Talk 17:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I thought you guys might find this useful, in order to use in an appropriate way any warning template: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Editing policy. Thank, you ( Rgvis ( talk) 19:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)). reply

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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duchy of Bukovina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcarpathia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I got confused with the "today part of section". My bad. Sorry about that! Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 17:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello Rgvis, I saw your edits regarding the new structure of the Romanian Land Forces. I have been trying to find some detailed info about that structure for months, but so far no luck. I am the editor doing and maintaing the pages with structures of armies i.e. Italy, Germany etc. and I do all the structure graphics i.e. Romania. I wanted to do an article " Structure of the Romanian Land Forces" for quite some time, and have started it now. However my problem is that reform as presented now doesn't make much sense. Just shutting down the 1st Division Command... and not also some of it's support units seems weird. If you happen to have extra information, please put it all in the Structure of the Romanian Land Forces article, so we can get that one truly perfect and then I will update the graphic. Thank you, cheers noclador ( talk) 23:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Noclador:, have you seen https://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/operations/nato-force-structures/MNDSE? The page for the 1st Inf Div needs to be moved to Headquarters Multinational Division South-East (NATO). One would think that some support units have been affected as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Rgvis. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civis Center Timișoara. It appears that you proposed the article for speedy deletion in the past. Cnilep ( talk) 03:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western Moldavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Aveti vreo idee cum sa contracaram astfel de derapaje? Eu inteleg ca statutul Ardealului intre Marea Unire si Trianon a fost oarecum tranzitional, dar sa se ajunga sa afirmam, fara nuantare, ca "Transylvania became part of Romania in 1920"? E totusi prea de tot. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Rgvis,

I noted these messages since thanks to Biruitorul we again ended up in the ANI and I had to check his personal page instantly. Just you to know I did not remove the content he was referring of, no problem if you mention it, but do not fall in the same trap like him. It is "not much" the fact that Transylvania became part of Romania in 1920, in full legalty only in 1921 (the exact date of all the internatinoal legistlations and codifications I can tell you if you want), however, no problem with 1920. You may only note that Romania acted as occupying force and by harming the international conventions they acted as it would be the member of the country, that caused many trials and disturbance between Hungarian and Romanian affairs. If you accept a good advice, you do not mention Slovakia as an own entity earlier than 1939, except as part of Czechoslovakia. Since many countries or entites were proclaimed in 1918 and 1919, we should be very careful of their recognition, mutual recognition or international recognition, since to proclaim a state one-sidedly without exact borders is dangerous, so I would not advice to render that "the Peace Treaties confirmed" everything, since without exact borders it is dubious, moreover regarding the declaration of the union in 1918 was never confirmed, since it claimed a much more larger territory from Hungary that finally was received, and legally confirmation would mean you adopt a former declaration, that was not the case.( KIENGIR ( talk) 01:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)) reply

What sort of "official names of the region"? "Magyar Autonom Tartomany" or "Regiunea Autonoma Maghiara" were the official names. Its ENGLISH translation is "Hungarian Autonomous Region". You also deleted secondary sources. Fakirbakir ( talk) 14:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Do you want an edit war? Can you communicate with me? Why are disturbed with other names used by historians? Fakirbakir ( talk) 11:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elena Moșuc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanian National Opera. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Rgvis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Computer-generated conception of the upcoming Embraer E-Jet E2 family.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Herzing University Logo 1.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:This is a logo for Herzing College (Canada).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Bună ziua. În iulie 2016 ați creat categoriile Universities and colleges in Moldova și Universities and colleges in Romania. Pot să aflu care a fost motivul care v-a determinat să le creați, pentru că așa cum ele se prezintă sunt ne-naturale pentru țările de care țin? Presupun că doar pentru uniformizare, dar acesta în sine nu este un motiv suficient și este de evitat. Sunt tentat să le propun spre ștergere, dar aș aprecia dacă veți pica de acord și veți cere dvs. ștergerea rapidă a lor în calitate de unic autor. XXN, 14:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Category:Universities and colleges in Moldova, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. XXN, 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:USAMV Iaşi seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Moldovan Orthodox Church (disambiguation)‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Anonimu ( talk) 09:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

:) Actually, you are the editor who started this action, and basically, you are the one who broke the Wikipedia rules and policies WP:PG !!!

( Rgvis ( talk) 10:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please also read and apply WP:PARAPHRASE. Borsoka ( talk) 18:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry, in my opinion exactly you are the editor who broke the Wikipedia rules and policies, starting with WP:NPOV! ( Rgvis ( talk) 19:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borsoka ( talk) 07:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, Rgvis. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borsoka ( talk) 09:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Borsoka ( talk) 15:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Transylvanian peasant revolt". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 March 2018.

The 
request for formal mediation concerning Transylvanian peasant revolt, to which you were listed as a party, has been 
declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the 
mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the 
Chairman of the Committee, or to the 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see 
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Please do not remove citation needed templates from articles unless you are adding a citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Template:Largest cities of Moldova has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- wooden superman 15:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Referring to your remarks about me ( [4]), you are welcome to help our co-editor to collect the proofs of my disruptive edits here. Borsoka ( talk) 15:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Please try to read the objections that I wrote on the Talk page instead of ignoring them. Please also read WP:3RR. Borsoka ( talk) 10:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka ( talk) 12:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Telemea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White cheese ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Mi se pare dubios acest editor maghiar "Borsoka" el si cu altii. E cam implicat in toate paginile despre istorila romanilor aici pe wikipedia. A sters tot ce vrut el si a pus din "sursele" lui. Face asta de ani de zile si inca nimeni nu l-a raportat. Din pacate..sunt foarte putini romani pe english wikipedia. Daca este un conflict mereu castiga pentru ca vin cu tot feluri de ipoteze sau argumente. Mai sunt KIENGIR si altii le urmaresc activitatea si vad ce fac.

Atat el, si mai sunt cativa trebuie banati de pe wikipedia. Nu se poate asa sa manipulezi cititorii straini si sa creezi confuzie. Multi aici nu prea stiu despre ura romano-maghiara.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.94.157 ( talk) 11:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Total de acord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:410:70E3:5D76:D291:7765:63E7 ( talk) 10:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, Rgvis. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

There is no pont in making an edit war in an article dedicated to Matthias Corvinus if the subject of the edit war is his father. Borsoka ( talk) 13:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

An article you recently created, Austrian diaspora, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed ( verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 09:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

For reference: [5] ( Rgvis ( talk) 08:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)) reply

Hi, I cannot acces now the sources directly, but as far as I know in the administration (= chancellery language (also)?) in the introduction of Romanian dates to 1622, that means the former was not necessarily ceased but mutually the two were used onwards...any details about this, or what those sources say?( KIENGIR ( talk) 15:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)) reply

Hi, there. Basically, this is about the chancellery written language (in documents). The sources say that the replacement process is a gradual one ( [6]), beginning with the 15th century and finalized in the 16th century (and for church, mostly in the 17th century). ( Rgvis ( talk) 16:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)) reply

I have deleted at sight a very deceiving formulation, namely: "aimed at the strengthening of its Romance character"

It is an important phrasing, IMO.

Thanks for your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.9.189 ( talk) 18:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Your last edits of the article ( [7]) suggest that either you misinterpret WP policies. Please understand that quotes from a reliable source cannot be described as original research. Please also understand, an editor cannot debate the neutrality of an article without explaining his/her concerns on the Talk page. General statements and random references to WP policies could hardly be regarded as an explanation. I kindly ask you to be constructive, or one can conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia which may have serious consequences. Borsoka ( talk) 08:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

A typical message that self-characterizes a person who feels guilty. :) ( Rgvis ( talk) 16:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)) reply

No, I do not feel guilty. I strongly suggest that you should understand the above message and especially what are the consequences if an editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. The problem is that you continues to make baseless accusations and to add random references to WP policies ( [8]). Your approach is really time-consuming. Editors should respect each other's time. Borsoka ( talk) 17:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

If it consumes your time, it can only be a good thing. You're not here to build an encyclopedia either: you're here to distort, misinform and push your own agenda. Curious how vested you are in making and editing articles about a foreign country, but not in the language of that country. Because you are clearly partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:410:70E3:5D76:D291:7765:63E7 ( talk) 11:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Not accusations at all (maybe you do not know, but we're not in court), but clear conclusions. And, in time, things will be clear for everyone (of course, as always, you will be continuing denying all the obvious issues you had created). ( Rgvis ( talk) 18:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)) reply

Please read the Talk page of the article. If you cannot verify it, please do no restore it. Please also read WP:3RR. Borsoka ( talk) 08:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Eastern Romance languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Polyamorph ( talk) 12:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply

You are restoring a random, unverified list of words. Please read WP:NOR before continuing edit warring. Please also read WP:3RR, because edit warring may have serious consequences. Borsoka ( talk) 07:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, Rgvis. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Austrian diaspora.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please at least try to pretend that you are willing to co-operate. Leaving questions unanswered is not the best way of communication. Borsoka ( talk) 16:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Sorry that you refuse to take into account the references presented and continue to persist in creating your original research content. ( Rgvis ( talk) 18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)) reply

If you read the discussion, you will realize that it was you who tried to modify the template without taking into account the source to what you were allegedly referring ( [9]). Borsoka ( talk) 02:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Since it seems you're a main editor to Re-latinization of Romanian, you might be interested in the last findings on the talk page. Keep up the good work, 92.217.10.246 ( talk) 06:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of cakes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amandine ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Since you appear to have a based knowledge on the Wikipedia rules system, I have a couple of questions about the interpretation of the rules, namely, how is it possible to characterize certain editorial behaviors according to the policies and guidelines of the Wiki.

1. Sourced content where the source doesn't support/confirm the content. What policy/guidelines does such an editorial behaviour break ?

2. Sourced content, where the source is misinterpreted through exaggeration, distortion, logical fallacies, etc ? What rules are broken ?

3. Which policy rules and/or guidelines breaks the reverting of legitimate sourced information ?

Thank you very much. -- Horea Vêntilă ( talk) 08:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The rules you are referring to are generally contained in the Wikipedia:Core content policies.

1. Wikipedia:Verifiability;

2. Wikipedia:No original research (but also you can check Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not);

3. See the difference between WP:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (also see: Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy) and pay attention to Wikipedia:Edit warring.

However, it is important to understand that Wikipedia does not work as a rigid organizational system, which is why it is good to keep calm (in any situation), and then to look for solutions, following the Wikipedia:List of policies (also worth reading: Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset).

After all, if you reached a situation where you really think that you can only get out through an administrator's intervention, then see Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention.

( Rgvis ( talk) 11:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)) reply

Thank you so much! You'll hear(read) from me :)

Horea Vêntilă ( talk) 13:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

You may want to have a look on recent edits and talks on Romanian Language. Thank you Horea Vêntilă ( talk) 15:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:UAIC logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, since we both have discussed with Лобачев Владимир lately on Talk:Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia#Official flag of the Moldavian principality, you might also be interested in another debate that I'm doing with the user right now at Talk:Moldovan schools in Transnistria#Romanian schools. You are of course welcome to ignore this if it does not interest you. Super Ψ Dro 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Rgvis: Hello, I am writing to inform you that a report was created about Лобачев Владимир's constant, systematic malicious activity in Wikipedia. Since I noticed that you encountered such actions of his recently, I strongly invite you to provide your opinion about him. Additional evidence would very welcome.

You can find this report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Лобачев_Владимир_reported_by_User:Pofka_(Result:_). -- Pofka ( talk) 19:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Systematic disruptive editing, provocations of edit warring in Wikipedia by user Лобачев Владимир and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, -- Pofka ( talk) 13:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I discussed Лобачев_Владимир's disruptive actions with an administrator from Wikipedia:Arbitration. After these recent disruptive actions, Лобачев_Владимир was presented with discretionary sanctions ( message by an administrator in his talk page), which means that any further violations of rules will likely result in serious sanctions for him. If he will continue to trample the rules of Wikipedia, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement about him. We should monitor Лобачев_Владимир's actions attentively as after analyzing his edit history I am 100% sure that he will comeback with his disruptive editing and attacks on foreign countries articles. Admin also noted that giving links to reports about his earlier violations of rules would be also useful in a future's report. I strongly recommend you to save these recent reports about him somewhere in your PC or similar. Best regards, -- Pofka ( talk) 19:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Pofka: Thank you for your message. Although I have no expectations about him, let's see how things evolve. All the best. ( Rgvis ( talk) 18:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)) reply

@ Rgvis: This user is trying to censor me in Wikimedia Commons when I began combating his propaganda files: LINK. Did you encountered his disruptive actions in Wikimedia recently? Evidence would be useful. -- Pofka ( talk) 19:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The case request you were a party to, Systematic disruptive editing, provocations of edit warring in Wikipedia by user Лобачев Владимир, has been declined after a majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. You can view a permalink of the case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Rendering of Brăila Bridge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RPRhartaadminitial.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Please Learn basic legal/constitutional history here: /info/en/?search=Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorals ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Rendering of Brăila Bridge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Rendering of Brăila Bridge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply

As per your suggestion in the talk page I proposed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Re-latinization of Romanian - Wikipedia. Please see discussion page. Aristeus01 ( talk) 21:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply