User talk:Nergaal/Archive 1

Ceres
- With regards to Ceres (dwarf planet), please don't just revert back to your own version, especially given that several editors have looked over the article since your text was first removed. While your contributions are certainly appreciated, unfortunately the changes to the lead paragraphs did not strengthen the text. Thank you. --Ckatz chat spy  09:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC) -

- A tag has been placed on Timeline of Romanian history, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. -   - Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NeilN 05:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC) -

Rodna National Park
-   - This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rodna National Park, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. -   - This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and 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 04:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC) -

Speedy deletion of Rodna National Park
- A tag has been placed on Rodna National Park, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g12. -   - Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines. -   - If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. &mdash; madman bum and angel 05:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Double Decathlon
- Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Double Decathlon, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Double Decathlon seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Double Decathlon, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 23:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC) -

Notes on nominations
- If you wish to nominate an article for featured status, you have to do a number of things. See Featured article candidates for the complete nomination procedure.  Serendi pod ous  11:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Rodna National Park
-   - This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rodna National Park, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. -   - This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and 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 06:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) -

Please stop
- Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- But |seriously |folks  06:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios
- You get zero seconds for a copyvio. Do not copy text from other websites, save it and then edit. If you start with a copyvio, you will end up with a copyvio, like you did at Theatre of Romania. Write only in your own words. -- But |seriously |folks  07:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - :You also appear to be copying a lot of text from one Wikipedia article to another. This causes a GFDL compliance issue. It is best to simply link to the other article, rather than copying the text over. If it is necessary to copy the text, you must also add an attribution note to the new article with a link back to the original. Something at the bottom of the page like: "This article includes text from the Wikipedia article Romania." Thank you. -- But |seriously |folks  07:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - ::I am sorry to spoil your copy/paste fun, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. If you have permission from another person to use their text, you have to demonstrate this per WP:COPYREQ. We can't just take your word for it. You should also attribute the source so people know you just copied it rather than writing it yourself. - ::Additionally, Wikipedia prohibits personal attacks. If you continue to leave me belligerant messages, I will block you for violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. -- But |seriously |folks  07:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
-  in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. I was going to give you a break on the copyright violations, but your sarcastic disdain for WP:C and GFDL requirements makes it clear you have not yet gotten the message. Stop copying from other websites and other Wikipedia articles without attributions, or you will be blocked again. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  07:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - :I have blocked your IP for block evasion. You are not improving Wikipedia. You are copying text from one place to another. And when you are caught violating policies, you become indignant and start belittling others. Please think about these issues while you are blocked and come back afterwards ready to write original text or otherwise participate within Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - ::Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. So far, this is about copyright violation, not your namecalling. But if you continue to leave me abusive messages, I will request that another admin block you for an extended period. So knock it off. And if you keep evading your block, I will block you for an extended period myself. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  07:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - Where are you trying to get with this? You are not replying to my questions but you continue to block me from having a serious discussion - :What questions? -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC) -   -    - I am writing about the title of the country X and in that article you are telling me I should add: "This article includes text from the Wikipedia article X." Or: I am upgrading the main article on the country X and I notice that the article say on culture of X has very little information that is barely a stub, contains bad grammar, etc. Then I realize that my edits on the main page will get trimmed down in the near future. You are telling me that I should bother editing twice the same information in different articles? -   - And a side-question: how come you get to become administrator with the rights to block users? - :If you want to create a splitoff article, that's fine. But if you copy text from, for example, Romania and add it to Transportation in Romania, you need to leave an attribution note at the bottom of Transportation in Romania, or else it's a GFDL violation. You should also remove the text from Romania, because there's no reason to have it in both places. Leave a "main article" reference in Romania. - :I want to be clear, though, you have been blocked for copying text from other websites, not GFDL violations. - :As to the side question, editors go through a rigorous evaluation at WP:RFA before becoming admins. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  07:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC) -   -    - Ok let's take the specific example: - *I am upgrading the information on Romania's main article AND then I realize that the transportation article is simply a stub. - *I copy the information to the transport from the main article that (information that I initially added MYSELF in the main article) - *I realize that the main article on Romania will be trimmed down a lot (so I at least back-up the details into the transport article) - *I do not have time to trim the main article myself so I will let other ppl do it  - *meanwhile, the extended information is 'stored' in the more specific article about transportation - * where did I do wrong? -   - Btw: removing the info from Romania requires extra time that I would rather spend expanding the transportation article. -   - No, I have been blocked because I called you stuff like crybaby, annoying, and smart (with a sarcastic tone). Don't excuse yourself with stuff like copyright violations -   - Also I have spent allready almost 1h trying to argue with you instead of expanding wikipedia. -   - Does that rigorous evaluation include stuff like: being able to be rational about your actions and not instigating to beligeranism? - :The numerous reasons why it is important not to have the full discussion in two places are discussed here. - :Copyright violations are not an excuse to block someone. They are taken very seriously here at Wikipedia, and you would do well to take that on board. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  08:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) -   - Why are you undoing the edits that I have made and have been agreed upon by ther users? In other words why are you instigating to beligeranism? -   - Again, why are you blinding undoing my edits? (i.e. the last 10h of my life that I have used to expand wikipedia?)

Please do not instigate to beligeranism
- Let's take the example of History of the Romania national football team. By undoing you simply did the following: - DELETE - "- ==Euro 2008==   - - Romania managed to qualify with two games still to be played, from a group featuring Netherlands and Bulgaria. " -   - If you don't believe me, please check the history. How was my edit violating ANY copyright? And how did you help wikipedia by deleting my edit? -   - Also most of the other edits you undid were like: I moved info from Romania into subarticles COMPLETELY (i.e. I did not duplicate any information, just moved), and you simply went ahead and palced them back on the main page. How is this attitude in any ways rational and non-instigating to beligeranism? -   - '''Very seriously, please redo the what you undid on my edits, or at least look at the history of the page and see weather there is absolutly any reason to undo my edits. Otherwise I promise I will look for ways to make your abuse of administrator rights noticed by who needs to oversee the admins on wiki.''' -   - Thank you again for the energy you spent on actually improving wikipedia instead of blindly abusing administrator rights - :Undoing edits is not an administrative prerogative. Any editor can do that. I tried to restrict my undo's to copyright issues. If I have undone something else, I apologize, and you can feel free to revert my undo. Just be careful not to restore any copyvios. - :As I noted above, when you move info from Romania into subarticles, you must leave an attribution note, or you are causing copyright problems for Wikipedia. (It violates the GFDL.) - :Also, please make sure you have finished your edit before pressing 'save page'. When you keep saving over and over again, it clutters up page and contrib histories, and it makes it difficult for others to post on the pages you are editing, because they keep getting edit conflicts. I have gotten several edit conflicts trying to respond to you at various times today. (Three on this response alone.) It makes it very difficult to try to discuss things with you. Thanks! -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  08:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - ::Note: You used 'save page' nine times on your last post. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  08:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC) -   - * I cannot undo your edits because you used your administrator rights to block me   - * by moving I meant: I cutted the info from tomania and pasted it into the subarticle (was it that hard to understand?) - ::You can undo my edits once your block expires. - ::I know what you meant by moving. For the 4th time, don't do that without leaving an attribution note. It violates the GFDL, which causes copyright issues for Wikipedia. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  08:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) -   - I am sorry but is impossible to understand fro your link what you mean (i.e. the article you are refering is simply not user friendly and not clear. an 'instructions'-type page should be foremost clear, otherwise it loses its use. you could have spent all this time improving that page to be seasily readable and comprehensible instead of preventing me to enjoy wiki) -   - ps: I will use the edit summary more often in the future (I believe that is what you are trying the say for the 4th time) -   - psps: not that you used it when undoing my edits (you are such a good example to follow) - :It's not an issue of edit summaries, although it would help if you did so when creating a splitoff. I explained what I meant by an attribution note above, and I even included an example. If you don't understand what is involved in copying text from one Wikipedia page to another, than don't do it or ask for help. The attitude that you don't have to follow the rules because you don't understand them is not going to work here. And you really ought to review WP:CIVIL before someone blocks you for saying mean things. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  08:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - ::By the way, do you think I want to be having this conversation with you? I too have better things to do. All I want is for you to understand and follow the rules. And to stop making nasty remarks about me. Is that too much to ask for? -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC) -   -    - I could also say: Stop preventing other users from enjying wiki. Is it too much to ask for? - :Frankly, yes. Copyright violation is one of the biggest dangers to Wikipedia. Ignoring it is not an option. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  08:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC) -   -    - And abusive admins is also high there among the dangers to Wikipedia (i.e. users will STOP contributing when with their own time and effort when they are being treated like you just did) -   -    - Also, you started this: you were the first one who instead of making suggestion (i.e. I will detete the article if you do not remove the copyrighted text); then instead of being a mediator (as, in my opinion, any wiki admin should be); you blocked me, which prevented me to reply to you; you undid my edits without even checking the edit history. -   - What did I do to get here? I have used external text, which I have only partially edited, and which you have absolutely no proof it was not originally mine, and I tried to make you understand that in my opinion you are not a good/positive admin (and that people who act like you should not become admins, and it is a shame for wiki that they actually do) -   - Reasons I have been blocked (Blocked IP addresses and usernames): "Repeated violations of Wikipedia copyright policy: persistent copyvios and personal attacks" -   - You instead stated: "So far, this is about copyright violation, not your namecalling...... want to be clear, though, you have been blocked for copying text from other websites, not GFDL violations. " -   - At least be a man and agree that namecalling was the only reason you did not eversee the copyright violation. - :I'm a patient person, but I'm tired of your abuse, so I've protected this page. - :You were blocked for copying text from other websites, as you admitted when you unleashed one of your first attacks against me. - :I sincerely hope that you spend some time at WP:C and WP:CIVIL and take Wikipedia's policies on board. If you continue along your present course, you're going to end up banned. Good luck! -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  09:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Rivers of Romania
-   - You have recently made some changes in the list of Rivers of Romania. I am not sure what your intention was. But the result of your endeavours is that, at present, there are two lists, which cannot be updated simultaneously. Therefore, if one of them is updated, case which actually happened, your list remains in the old format. This will only create confusions. How can anybody know which list is updated and which is obsolete? Anyway in the present format it can justs become worse. -   - Besides, having a single list for all entries results in an extremely long file, over 200 kb which is not advisable in Wikipedia. If you had looked at the file you created, you would have noticed a warning that the file should be split. - Afil 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject
Hi, Nergaal. I'm a member of the WikiProjectRomania, and I think I owe you some explanations and excuses: as we stand, the project is underdeveloped. It was started by a user who is no longer active, and its membership has remained small. I guess I'm the most active mamber there, but that is simply because I saw it happening and decided to add my name there and basically tag article talk pages with it. This was in the hope that the project would become more active with time.

Concerning the maps: the best way is if these are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which makes them available on all wiki projects. That is unless they already are uploaded there, and I'm pretty sure many of them are are - which means that the maps should be available. Note, however, that the Romanian users who designed them don't seem to have agreed on a single format, while the maps used for cities are, by what seems to be consensus and replicating such maps for other countries, those of city locations in Romania, not those of city locations in counties (as opposed to communes). I really don't know any more on the subject. Dahn 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You could create an account on commons and upload it there. The upload comes with instructions and a template, and there is a special set of instructions for uploading images already released on other wiki projects (since once it is placed there it can be used on all projects - meaning that bots or admins will consequently replace the originally uploaded image with the commons version). It is okay to upload uncopyrighted images there, and these have been released by their creators. However, if you decide to do this, please make sure you don't forget to tag them with a proper tag, to indicate their author, and to provide a link to the original location, because they will otherwise be deleted or the info will get tangled. Also note that commons is only for pictures that are not copyrighted, and that other rules will apply in other cases. Dahn 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, I strongly believe that the articles on the metropolitan zones should be merged into the articles on the cities - their administrative role seems informal, and the articles are not likely to get any bigger, whereas all the info could simply be a distinct part of the larger articles. Dahn 01:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Romania: main page - history section
re: Romania: main page - history section Please do not further expand the history section. It is allready long enough allready. The article is way too long on general (100k), and history is a huge factor. Please do not add large modifications in the history section, unless they are truly relevant and add to the compactness. Nergaal 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, you are very welcome to modify and expand the history articles (the main one and the subarticles)! Nergaal 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) So kind of you to give me permission. My "Adds" were modest indeed, being only some glue phrases and more professional section titles. Compare this and this, which took quite a while, but was worth it. The current version has the same problems I set out to solve. You with all your vast experience since July 1st, are so clearly a better judge of what's best than me and 20k edits spread over all eleven sister projects. Glad to know that.
 * 2) Compactness should not be your primary concern, but instead completeness and a professional looking presentation (appearance).
 * 3) I was "Done"&mdash;any expansion was up to the project people, beyond the small amount of glue text I added. You have to trade length for spreading out the link density, and I would urge you to forget any rationale that suggests a main article for a country with as lengthy a history as that one has should meet some arbitrary size cap. WP:IAR certainly applies to some extent. (Try looking at India, if you think you have size issues!)
 * 4) Do you realize undoing my edits, in particular, restoring those obnoxiously long and large section titles is neither encyclopediac, nor professional looking, nor a step forward. I understand your concern on the byte count, but shortening the titles and a few dozens of lines so the article reads intelligibly to the casual reader is not going to kill you folks.
 * 5) ANY important historical era deserves some mention of the high points, and asking a reader to combine millenia is hardly fair to your region... the history is there, it happened, our job is to report on it, at least in a survey form. Putting links (some of us hate to change pages!) is not equivilent to giving a reader a recap of the era&mdash;in particular, I find the way you did it in that page to be poorly prioritized.
 * 6) More than 3-4 words in a section title is really unprofessional. WHERE in any print encyclopedia have you seen that? Longer subtitles, as per my changes, sure. NOT TOC entries. Perhaps you've got your nose in too many journals and not enough in "Acceptable practices". It's really off-putting.
 * 7) Since I do a lot of tidying up on pages needing fresh input, and most of it stands up, you perhaps ought to recheck the finished copy I left and compare to the current appearance.
 * 8) Removing FixHTML is a bad idea, it does no harm, and solves several different issues on browsers with rendering order issues, especially with regard to infoboxes and the strange effects edit links can have around such.

Be well, like a moving pen, I generally write just once. For the most part I do it well. OTOH, maybe this one should have a revert. Cheers // Fra nkB 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer to your response at Romania:_main_page_-_history_section // Fra nkB 15:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

PING -- And go take a break before you get yourself banned. This is NBD, and getting into a pissing contest with anyone over it means your ego instead of your brain is engaged. Take a walk, think on my suggestion. Don't know whether I covered all your counterpoints or not, but I tried. RL is now way overdue. Be well. // Fra nkB 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Your reverts in Romania article are inadmissible. Please keep in mind that this way of editing may be considered as disruption. `'Míkka>t 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Second warning
One more revert and you will be blocked from editing. `'Míkka>t 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The proper way of solving a disagreement is to ask for opinions of other users, not reverting your opponent. Complete reversal of someone's work is blatant disrespect and allowable only for vandalism. `'Míkka>t 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am repeating again: please seek an opinon of another editor of the topic. Possible places are WP:THIRD and Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Also, please refrain from personal accusations. `'Míkka>t 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please discuss article content in article talk pages, not in user talk pages. `'Míkka>t 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Last warning
`'Míkka>t 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is aggressive behavior? Another statement that is not backed up. I am just stating how is the situation seen from my point of view. If I am wrong, please correct me.

How would you call abusing admin privileges (i.e. the thing you keep threatening me with)?


 * You are blocked for 24h for abusive trolling of user page user talk:Fabartus. `'Míkka>t 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have unblocked you. The block was clearly inappropriate as the blocking admin apparently has a relationship with the other party, and all you did was point that out.  (I note that the blocking admin removed your observation that they knew each other.)  The blocking admin should have recused himself and reported it rather than blocking you himself.  I would suggest you avoid both of them in the future.  Happy editing! -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your impartiality! Nergaal 04:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, can't I edit pages right now? Am I blocked or unblocked?Nergaal 04:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like you were autoblocked. I have unblocked your IP, so you should be able to edit now. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about all that
I was just dropping in to:
 * 1) share this: Image:ClassicalBalkans1849.jpg to see if you wanted it for the page
 * 2) To request you rethink and reattach Thracia as one of the main articles cited. See about half way down and the meaning once meaning everything south of the Danube... that's part of Romania, so far as I know, even if the Province (Thracia) after Roman times was scruntched down into and between Macedonia... which is the whole point... geo-historical terms are neither geo nor hist without the other! Mostly, in Greek times, Thracia was meant to include Dacia up to the mountains north of the Danube.
 * 3) Lastly, I wanted to compliment you on how its looking after your recent batch of edits. Much nicer and more standardized.
 * 4) 'Really' lastly <g>, I'm really sorry you ran afoul of Mikalai. I'm not sure what pushed his buttons, but it's likely you just need to slow your response time down a day or two.    That's all I wanted you to do too. This is a wiki, there is no hurry!     O'Course, "Getting Fresh" didn't help either... particular since I don't know him from Adam [I do know fresh, my two boys get carried away too, now and again <g>].


 * Had it been CBD or David Kernow or Mel Etitis, yeah you'd have a tiny case. A handful of others, maybe a little. But when you make such an accusation (or just have a suspicion!), look at the time line first. He intervened without a peep from me. I can't prove it, but was likely the massive diff appearance and no edit summary taken together while he was patrolling recent changes. You may as well say I'm buds with Jimbo Wales, just because I've yelled at him a couple of times in public and emails. NOT!

Be well. // Fra nkB 23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) share this: Image:ClassicalBalkans1849.jpg to see if you wanted it for the page
 * 2) To request you rethink and reattach Thracia as one of the main articles cited. See about half way down and the meaning once meaning everything south of the Danube... that's part of Romania, so far as I know, even if the Province (Thracia) after Roman times was scruntched down into and between Macedonia... which is the whole point... geo-historical terms are neither geo nor hist without the other! Mostly, in Greek times, Thracia was meant to include Dacia up to the mountains north of the Danube.


 * 1) I have added another image instead - that is easier to read
 * 2) I have checked the Tharacia article and I wasn't able to find refereces to either Dacia and present-day Romania. Also, the text in the histor section of Romania does not mention the word Thracia at all. I am not sayin you are wrong, but that there would be a main link to an article that makes no reference to the parent article. Nergaal 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that I find likely... though those old maps are cool in their own way, as one thing they do well is use the historical names everyone referred to in classical times, literature, and studies. As such, they are a good second source when modern text is muddled... as is quite common with our writing on wikipedia.
 * No, it probably doesn't, but it should, which is the message. Ancient Thracia, as the Greeks would have figured it included that part of Romania which became Dacia, as well as the part (south bank) of the Danube conquered by Rome earlier in Augustus' time (Moesia). The other question is what they meant by Illiria, or however that latin term originated in Greek histories and literary mentions, but it's pretty clear that region is to the Adriatic side of the Balkan penninsula, the mountains, as always, being a barrier to both culture and armies.    Keep in mind, the Romans copied much of what they knew of the world from Greeks. In other words, the north of "old (Greek) Thracia" is the Dacia you agree is part of the region. What century "one is in"&mdash; is the point, and my meaning would apply before the founding of Rome. But that it was part of the region before the meaning changed, means it should be included... it's part of the history of the region, and the linguistic language analysis back up the point, as do the skimpy  historical records or cultural references from those early days in "written history". // Fra nkB  07:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the last sentence of the introduction to 'Dacia': "The inhabitants of this district are generally considered as belonging to the Thracian nations." There's another cross reference in Moesia, which again is north of the Balkans and west of the Black sea. Bottom line, geography determines a great deal of history for getting around on foot was the only way in most places until the  last century, and still is today in much of the world. That's the whole underpinning of geolinguistic analysis of ancient peoples, which is by the way, the thing which brought me into Romania... there are slavic groups north and south of Romania and Hungry&mdash;but the slavic language died out in those central regions. Why? I'd guess a thorough bloodletting by the Huns and Avars, and so forth effectively burying the prior culture and its social underpinnings. That's another reason an article covering the geographic-historical region that happens in 'this century' to be a modern nation state coinciding with that longer existence. The article has to service both, not just the nation-state. // Fra nkB  07:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
Four peer review requests you recently made (Adolf Hitler, Football, Life and Atom) have been ignored because the request instructions were not completed. Please either complete the nomination procedure (see WP:PR) or archive the requests (replace with  ). Alternatively, I can delete the pages for you, if you let me know that's what you prefer. DrKiernan 10:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and delete them. Nergaal (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't
I moved it out of the mainspace (WikiProject Elements/Templates) to wikipedia space {WikiProject Elements/Templates). I believe you accidentally posted it to the wrong location so I moved it for you. –– Lid(Talk) 12:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Nergaal (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Only remaining descendats
"Besides being the only remaining descendants of the Eastern Romans" -- I think this is incorrect if Aromanian is considered a separated language (which I think it pretty much is) -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That is probably open to interpretations, some consider Aromanian a separate language, but in the context that you mentioned that Romanians are "the only remaining descendants" I don't think it is understood that Aromanians are included in the category too, actually I think it's pretty clear that is about Romanians in Romania especially that the article is about Romania not about Romanians in general. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, reedited my edits.Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all people can understand Aromanian.--Cezarika f. (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ha? Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you have some problems with User:mikkalai. Why did he deleted the text anyway? --Cezarika f. (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to edit your version of article Moldova, it was written there that Moldovans are not Romanians in the 2nd paragraph.--Cezarika f. (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * what is your problem? why are you acting so p.m.s.-y? :D
 * Nu ştiu, ce înseamnă p.ms? Nu te enervează ăla?--Cezarika f. (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nu fii pampas: că era bine. Located geographically at the crossroads of Latin and Slavic cultures and having the common heritage with the Culture of Romania, Moldova has enriched its own culture adopting and maintaining some of the traditions of its neighbors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cezarika f. (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * pampas??? encycopaedic references such as britannica are discouraged - I believe. Anyways, next time you make edits, PLEEEASE take into account other opinions by other users. The hidden text was there for a purpose.
 * Also, ahat is your point with your edits? They are neither too objective, neither pro-Romanian, neither pro-Russian, nor pro-Moldavian. What are you trying to prove?Nergaal (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nu poţi vorbi în română? că nu prea ştiu bine engleza. Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

and I'm a he not a her.--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) "pampas"=? 2) your profficiency in english might limit your ability to have good edits (i.e. step down a bit from this additude); 3)if you are actually 12, then congrats for being on wiki; but really, stop acting like a kiddo, or even worse, like a 12-year old girl! Nergaal (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * aşa ma enervezi mă. Nu poţi să nu-mi mai dai atâtea sfaturi? --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just hope you are not a heshe


 * and I hope you are not a shim :-D Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mă enervantule nu poţi să te opreşti?--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * please stop begging for a permanent block! Nergaal (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * do you speak Romanian? I guess not.--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * what the f is with Stratan! my version has the same thing about stratan as your edit!
 * Then why you you yeal at me? My version is not worster than yours. You think it's your own article?--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * YES IT IS!!! if you would have bothered to see that other users allready agreed then the article would not have been blocked now. RETARDATULE!
 * So, your only word in Romanian is that one? You didn't even bother what stupities have your version: I will show you and you'll agree with me. BOSUMFLATULE! --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am waiting
 * BINE
 * Current version has: The Moldovans are a Latin people identically to the Romanians, with the Romanian language. while your version had: The majority of the population is represented by Moldovans, which are Latin people officially recognized as a distinct group from Romanians, having a separate Moldovan language - although probably identical in most aspects to Romanian language. You see the difference? ? Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * yep, that that you are a moron!
 * distinct group from Romanians, having a separate Moldovan language ce f de popor este? şi ce p m faci de nu înţelegi mai repede? --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * is officially a word too much out of your intelligence range?Nergaal (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * was that all you found to be a stupidity in my edit?Nergaal (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was in fact very similar with my version, in fact was your version. I don't know why you cry like a 12 years old kiddo. You want to have the pattern of your own on all articles?--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be nice to you and you were a mongoloid and got both of us blocked. Congratulations! Now two users with pro-Romanian views blocked each other, and pro-Russians users will have the upper hand. Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Romania review
That's a good idea, however I have to decline, I will be MIA for a while. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MIA=? Nergaal (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MIA I will be missing for a while. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that we need to remove that tag from external links, we need to clean those links a little bit I think, see here the policy: External_links -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not notice that tag. I reviewed the links and deleted one of them. the others seem fine.Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu
Just a word of caution... see here and here, I tell you this because I saw you getting overworked by a 12 years old kid. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of Arbitrations. What do they solve? Also, are users that are vandalizing wiki going to be banned? Nergaal (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't predict what decision they will take, users who vandalize wiki are usualy dealt in other locations. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

npa
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ··coe l acan 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2007-0427+0+DOC+WORD+V0//EN Romania reiterates that, according to the facts and scientific evidence, including the interpretatio]

@

 * 1) uses wikipedia as a reference, so considering it a reference means considering wikipedia the reference. This is not allowed here.
 * 2) states clear that "the facts and scientific evidence" are only Romania's opinion, that is allegedly also supported  by a misterious 1994 interpretation of the Academy of Science of the Republic of Moldova, that may or may not be obsolete by now.
 * 3) Also makes it clear that the rapporteur stated Romania's oppinon on the matter, and not that of the EP.
 * Please stop your insults. And please buy some glasses.

Anonimu (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Trei Ierarhi Monastery
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Trei Ierarhi Monastery, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and 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) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you move an article (like you did with this one), could you please do it in such a way that the whole history of the article (including older versions which may be helpful to consult, and a record of who did what) is not wiped out? There are technical explanations on how to do this the right way on the WP site.  Thanks.  Turgidson (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

New articles
Essentially, it indicates my frustration at the fact that many of your contributions have been well below our standards. Take for instance Moldoviţa Monastery. No references. At least five spelling errors. No assertion of notability (I happen to know it's notable, but an outsider would have no clue). No diacritics. No coherence to the grammar. In other words, utterly without merit. Now, I'm not against stubs of a couple of lines, provided they're neatly written and show promise for expansion. But what you've created here and elsewhere is a work without anything to recommend it that will have to sit there, debasing the encyclopedia's value, until someone comes along (perhaps months or years later) and decides to write an actual article rather than string together some half-baked irrelevancies about the monastery. Really, why do it? Biruitorul (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All well and good, but what about things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MOS, etc? Look, a stub need not be perfect, but it really should be coherent, and many of the ones in question are far from even that. So it makes us look worse, I believe. I'd rather hear nothing about Moldoviţa than to read that "This receusory will be extended by Roman Musat Voivode", a sentence that has about zero meaning for an outside reader. (What's a "receusory", anyway? Well, I guess it's something you copied from here.) So really, I think it would be great if the stubs themselves waited until a more favourable moment. Biruitorul (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation warning
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop such uploads or you may be blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See this report to AIV, to which I was responding. The other editor says you are creating articles by cutting text from copyrighted websites and pasting it here, which we cannot permit. Daniel Case (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nadia Comaneci
... I left some comments on WP:PR. They're just my two cents; other people may disagree or have more to say. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you can the article be stopped from deletion?
--Sambure (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC) If you help me I will help you.--Sambure (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

lol. no idea how to stop deletion. just make sure in the future you write a more comprehensive article and that you link it to some relevant other article (i.e. in this case link it to Foreign relations of Romania)
 * All other 100 articles are the same.--Sambure (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Labeling carbon articles
Hi I saw that you were labeling a lot of carbon articles. Is there some reason or some discussion behind this activity? Just curious, because if we added such a layer of wording for every category, we wont have space left for content, it seems. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What I am "getting at" regarding your labeling articles on inorganic carbon is whether you apparent plans for all articles on inorganic carbon been discussed with [|WE-chem group]. Such a discussion would be conventional consultative procedure for changes that affect the presentation/policy for many articles. In such a conversation, it would be appropriate to discuss your definition of "inorganic" (unclear if there is agreement in the WE-chem community over this, as illustrated by the conversation at []).  And for, say phosgene, is it your intention to have a multi-layered categorization for inorganic carbon, inorganic oxygen, and inorganic chlorine? If no why not, and if yes what are the implications for lots of layers of links at the bottom of each article?  Will this presentation enhance the usefulness of WE - or otherwise? Periodically editors appear on the scene intent on sweeping through these pages with info on their special insights, or administrative ideas that inspire them.  In such cases, consultation with the community is a good idea to gain advice and help.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note and glad to see your enthusiasm for what is an organic cmpd (I dont agree with IUPAC, but that is unimportant). Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Elements
Thanks for helping to clean that page up - I've been meaning to do that for ages. :) --mav (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/orban-a-eliminat-limba-moldoveneasca-de-pe-site-ul-comisiei-europene/329489 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.65.92.2 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Catalysis is the new chemistry collaboration
Hi Nergaal! You supported making catalysis the chem collaboration, and it is the article we're now working on. If you can help it'd be great. I hope I will be able to pitch in as well after exams are over - I'd like to revitalise the Chemistry Collaboration. Thanks, Walkerma 05:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungary
Points taken, thanks, though introduction is obviously fine as it is, sorry. Gregorik (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Steel
Hi,

I undid your edit to steel, as I don't know what you are trying to do, but it is quite unconventional to use strikethrough in an article. Thanks, User A1 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I will add them as you told me.Suchwings1 (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

? Oxygen
Why did you remove my statements in the oxygen article about the original units that are given in the cited reference? This is a serious data integrity issue since the inline figures given are calculated conversions and not the original units. Also, my inline notes were just that, notes, not quotations from the reference. Please slow down or I'll have to do a mass revert. --mav (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also - the specific page references to NBB and other items were removed and replaced with one reference with a page range. This makes it harder for people to check the veracity of the statements and will need to be fixed back to the way things were. --mav (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Each of those references had multiple pages; removing the individual page numbers makes it harder for a third party to verify the cited fact. However, I think I found a style we can both agree on. See CITE. --mav (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll convert to the new style; What I was doing was a kludge anyway since I didn't know about the wikicite template. What we really need is the ability to pass page variables to the ref name= syntax. You'll find the ECE book under the editor's name, Hampel. Here is the Amazon link. You should buy it - it was the best book on the subject in its day and is still pretty darn useful if used carefully. --mav (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oxygen FAC
I do believe that FAC may be a bit premature because I'm not done expanding the article yet. About half the prose was written by me and I already stated a want to bring this to FAC myself. With your permission, I'd like to make this a co-nom between you, me and WikiProject Elements. I'll then work on addressing the final expansion and clean-up to make sure this FAC succeeds. --mav (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

unblock

 * Please wait, I'm in contact with the blocking admin. <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 23:33, November 19, 2007


 * thanks for your time!Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

multiple FACs
Sorry, I did not know there is a limit on concurrent FACs. I did not manage to find any explicit rule on this. Nevertheless, I withdrew/deleted the Gregory House one. I will resubmit it later. Thanks for letting me know. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I archived Gregory House for you; please see WP:FAC/ar and wait for the bot to update the article talk page. Good luck with Oxygen.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! -- R O  <tt> A M A  T  A A </tt> |<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;"> msg  17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)