User talk:Gutza

If you expect a timely reply, please also drop me a note on my Romanian talk page, and if it's urgent feel free to send an e-mail.

Hello Gutza, welcome to Wikipedia!

There are lots of resources around to help guide you. be sure to check out:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Also check out

• wikipedia:image use policy before uploading any images

If you need any help try

• Wikipedia:Help
• Village pump
• My talk page User_talk:Jimfbleak.

Don't be afraid of making the odd mistake, there are any number of others eagerly waiting for a chance to correct it!

Hello. There have been some problems with logging in lately (see the Wikipedia:Village pump). You might want to try logging in again (the problems might've been ironed out). -- Notheruser 00:38, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

:-( Nope, not yet apparently. But it does seem to be a more generic problem than I thought at first, so I'll be patient. Thanks for the quick answer! -- 217.156.116.130 00:40, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Editing on the meta version of the press release has effectively stopped. Please be advised that we may be distributing the non-English press releases as early as Monday 29 September. The English version will be distributed the week after in order to smooth out the load on our servers. --maveric149 22 Sep 2003

---

Hi. I sent out a bulk email regards wikipedia:arbitrators, but I had at least one email address wrong, so I thought I should mention it here as a backup. Is xxxxxx up-to-date? Martin 02:15, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for posting it here in clear text for spam harvesters. Don't worry, although I deleted it, it's still available in the history, I'm sure the spiders will get to it. --Gutza 15:37, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can delete the history of the page if you'd like. *shrug*. I meant to use the X at Y obfuscation (as on wikien-l), but it seems I made a mistake. Ho hum. Martin 22:32, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I emailed you re: arbitration, but your address bounced the email. Let me know if I should resend to a different address. Martin 19:26, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I replied via e-mail to the address linked in your user's page (in the right-hand side of the page, towards the bottom). Yes, that e-mail is working fine, please try again. Gutza 22:49, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Got your two emails, responded, forwarded. Strange. Martin 23:03, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I see you contributed to the creation of the press release. Might you be willing to follow these steps, and send off the press release? -- user:zanimum

Already did so for the Romanian Wikipedia, and also got an article to prove it. :) --Gutza 14:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh! Wow! Great. Can you note this in the English logbook, just so we know what areas have already been covered? -- user:zanimum

When you have a moment, could you vote in the matter of Wik? --mav

Re: our recent colloquy in Talk:Iron Guard: I took a shot at revising the article accordingly, tell me if you think there is still a problem. -- Jmabel 18:19, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, history of any country is inevitably controversial. Believe me, it's not easy to get consensus about the American Civil War here, and we've had a century and a half. -- Jmabel 19:54, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Can you please translate the election notice * into Romanian and post it prominently on the Recent Changes page of the Romanian Wikipedia. Once you have done that, please let me know, and leave me a link where I can find it. Thanks. User:Danny on en.

Am o rugăminte. Poţi urmări discuţia de la articolul Iisus Hristos de pe Wikipedia Română ? Mie mi se pare firească forma cu doi II, pentru că aşa este folosită de către ortodocşii români, care sunt majoritari în ţară.

Eu sunt ateu, dar mie mi se pare firesc să folosim formele corecte (adică cele acceptate de populaţie). Eventual aş explica în articol de unde vin ambele forme, dar am decis să nu contribui nimic în rowiki pînă cînd nu se clarifică treaba aceasta (dacă articolele „aparţin” celor ce le-au creat).

Danke, Masi27185.

Hi! I wished to tell you that your addition regarding the complex interwoven stories of Seinfeld is quite pertinent, thanks for writing it. This is indeed something I notice and admire about the Seinfeld show. Just a comment: in this sentence: "A nice exercise in this direction is to try to summarize the action in a random episode of the show reasonably accurate", should it not say "reasonably accurately" or "in a reasonably accurate way"? Also, is a suggestion of experiment appropriate for an encyclopedia article (and the use of the emotional, subjective term "nice")? Well, thanks again for your contributions! --Liberlogos 23:26, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You wrote "no evidence". There's some evidence at User talk:JRR Trollkien...

Dear Arbitration Committee:

I have read the following:

=== Remedies===

1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) User:Adam Carr is banned for one day for making a personal attack.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

4) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

1) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

I have attempted twice to restore this passage to the article:

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has tried to clear LaRouche's name, arguing that investigators and political opponents had abused the legal process to eliminate him. Clark wrote in 1995, in a letter to then serving Attorney General Janet Reno: "I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."[http:// larouchein2004.net/ exoneration/ clarkletter.htm]

In the early 1990s, while LaRouche was in prison, full page advertisements, calling for LaRouche to be exonerated, appeared in papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post. Among the signators were heads of state and cabinet-level officials from around the world, including Arturo Frondizi, former President of Argentina; leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, including Amelia Boynton Robinson (the heroine of Bloody Sunday) and Rosa Parks; former Minnesota Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Eugene McCarthy; and prominent artists, such as violinist Norbert Brainin, former primarius of the Amadeus Quartet.

It is interesting, and perhaps puzzling, that these individuals came to the defense of a man who has been so universally condemned in the press throughout the English-speaking world.

It had been reverted by administrator Guanaco. When I replaced it he reverted it again, with the explanation that it was forbidden by the AC ruling. I put it back in, saying that I had read the AC ruling. Then it was reverted by administrator AndyL. Could you please explain how the ruling forbids this? The section is certainly factual and I think it makes the article more neutral. Weed Harper 14:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like to call your attention to the following, which indicates that Adam Carr has resumed his campaign of personal attacks, in defiance of the Arbitration Committee rulings:

"I have no objection to Snowspinner or some other User not previously involved attempting to write a compromise or composite article incorporating elements of the pro-LaRouche and anti-LaRouche articles. I am not optimistic of their chances of success (it will be like trying to write an article on evolution by merging a Darwinian article and a creationist article), but I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. I am emphatically not willing that Herschelkrustofsky should be the person to undertake this task, since he is not only a LaRouche cult member and thus a partisan in this controversy, but also a proved and notorious liar and slanderer. Anything he writes will be just another attempt to wheedle his lying LaRouche garbage into Wikipedia and will be immediately reverted. Adam 11:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)" (from Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#The_Basic_Version)

--Herschelkrustofsky 15:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I have raised the question of your continued participation on the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. --Michael Snow 06:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gutza, I'm writing because you were one of the editors on the Arbitration Committee who voted regarding the ruling on LaRouche activism in Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision.

If you have time, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision? Herschelkrustofsky has initiated a query of the Arbitration Committee for clarification of their ruling. I agree that clarification is needed, because I feel the wording of the ruling has left loopholes that the LaRouche supporters are exploiting. I have therefore written up a long response to Herschelkrustofsky's query and have requested clarification from the Committee on three specific points, as I feel this is an opportunity to put the matter to rest. I wondered whether you'd be prepared to comment on the page. If you don't have the time or inclination, however, don't worry about it. Many thanks, Slim 04:02, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Option 1

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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

Hi, what is the license of Image:Lab color at luminance 25%.png please ? We use it on french wp and I wonder. Thanks in advance. Tipiac 22:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've formatted the equations on the Lab color space page with math markup. I'd appreciate if you could take a look at that page and make sure I've not made any huge mistakes — Zeimusu | Talk 02:44, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Va multumesc, Domnul Gutza, pentru reparati la tablu in profil meu. Dave

Would you mind trying to resolve old dispute on the article?

A month or two ago someone with a website discovered Wikipedia and put his theories on the place. When I question basis for his edit I got called Nazi a that upset me that I do not want to touch this topic anymore.

The issues were about origin of Roma, about their estimated numbers and whether the promoted website has any relevancy in the real world. My findings are on Talk page on the article [1] (though I am mere programmer, not an expert on the topic).

Could you try to check out facts, fix what's needed and then remove the {{npov}} template from the site? Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 00:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pavel!

I'd be happy to review your claims (which, I must say, look reasonable at first glance), but I honestly don't have the necessary time to do that right now (please don't take this personal, consider the time needed to go through all references and article+discussion history). I'll definitely try to look into this topic as soon as I have some time to invest in this, it really is a topic which intrigues and interests me as well anyway, and which I'd be happy to look further into.

Thank you for notifying me on the issue,

Gutza 02:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gutza, I am having trouble keeping my data straight, particularly because of a lot of anonymous vitriol that seems to be going around. I'll be posting population data from multiple sources on my own talk page Usertalk:L_Hamm so that I can focus on that aspect. Comments? Thank you for your patience and taking the time to edit. L Hamm 19:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{npov}} had been there for over month and no one felt need to chime in (I had asked several people). Thanks for interest. Pavel Vozenilek 17:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm actually part Hungarian but since me family includes members of the Hungarian minority in Romania and my father was called the zigany or Tsigany in his village, I think can shine my light on this topic. I've read your comment on Roma and although I do not agree with the strong feelings soem people have against these people I realise they are quite strong and are deeply embedded in culture. My mother told me that if a gyspy comes to your front door, you should close (and lock) the door and run to the backdoor cause they're probably out to steal from you. I don't have any negative experience with them myself, but know people who have. I think they have a fascinating culture, but it's in ocnflict with our European values. I think it would have been better not to place these comments but acknowledge that the majority thinks about htme this way. Jorgenpfhartogs 07:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gutza, thanks for stepping in. I'm out now for the weekend, hopefully these kids are not going to ruin all Wikipedia meanwhile :o) If you have trouble with Hungarians anytime, I'm ready to help. KissL 16:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, us software developers need to stick together in this cruel world! :-) On an unrelated note, I've obviously read your user page -- is your daughter killing you the same way ours is killing us? Ours is a few weeks younger (born on May 29), and we can just begin to see some signs of normal life on the horizon, but we're not there yet... --Gutza 19:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it seems I should have watchlisted your talkpage, sorry... :) In what way is your daughter killing you? We only had a really hard time with ours in the first 6-8 weeks, when she wanted a meal every 3 - 3.5 hours, but since then, she usually goes to sleep at 10pm and gets up only at 7am, which leaves us more or less enough time to sleep at night, and then whatever she's up to during the day, it is already easy (or so we feel, after those first weeks...) Of course this is not to say that I couldn't lie down just anywhere and sleep for two entire days on end, but at least the backlog is not increasing anymore :) KissL 10:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waited for almost two weeks before answering, as to be able to speak from (almost) the same position (remember, ours was just past the 6-8 weeks threshold when I wrote the original message). You're right, things are becoming pretty stable and all right -- ours still wakes up once for milk in the night, but overall, at least it's predictable. And she's also crying a lot less -- this is what I meant by "killing you", ours wanted constant attention when not asleep, which, if you haven't experienced it, is quite exhausting. Cheers, Gutza ^{T T+} 21:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Truly. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick inquiry about your name: are you a fan of Nicolae Gutza? Manelist? You certainly sound like a knowledgeable, polite and honest person, which is quite atypical for manelists. My guess is that your name is actually ironical, but I'd rather hear it from you than make any false assumptions. Havee a great day, whatever your musical preferences. 85.186.24.151 11:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend -- it's completely unrelated, I used "Gutza" as a nickname long before Nicolae Guta became public, I was not going to stop using it because of that guy. I still have occasional "problems" with Romanians ("manelistule!"), but that's usually easily fixed. --Gutza 11:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am so incredibly glad to hear that. Seeing as you are an active member of Wikipedia and the sysop for the Romanian version, I was troubled that my "fate" as a Wikipedian was in the hands of a manelist. Thanks for the answer. Cheers! 85.186.24.151 11:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are truly honest, you must admit that you are violating the Wikipedia policy by adding statements like "It was suggested that..." If you have some PROOF that Roma have in early times practised some form of Hinduism, please PROVIDE the RELIABLE sources, otherwise, don't mislead people with UN-SCIENTIFIC statetments! If you don't like that Roma are NOT HINDU and HAVE NEVER BEEN, there's nothing we can do for you, as we don't intend to adopt such religion.

Hi, I'd like to start Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct on User:85.38.174.138 edits of Roma people. Would you co-sign and include your attempts to convince him peacefuly? --Wikimol 15:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You my friend, need to take a friendly visit to the PHP manual! http://www.php.net/print. The issue is about what is written in the PHP Documentation. I would have hoped you would have read the documentation before considering a revert. I have also made a post in the Talk page so you can consider the implications yourself. Essentially, print is not a function it is a language construct and therefore does not require parentheses. Including them not only makes the program more complex but teaches bad programming habits. One might eventually consider it a function, that may or may not return a value, and then proceed to code a line such as $var = print('hello world');. Do you see where I'm going with this? Thanks for reading it up in the manual. Quadra23 Sep 7, 2005.

La un moment dat te-ai interesat si tu de soarta wikipediei moldovenesti. Nu au vrut sa puna la socoteala votul tau ptr. ca zicea node( sysopul de atunci si de acum) ca inca nu ai contribuit la wikipedia inaite de a vota. Insa deja ai contribuit prin comentarile tale deci ar trebui ca acum sa poti sa votezi pe data de Oct 1. ptr. alegerile noului sysop.

In esenta batalia este intre romanofobul node( care nici macar nu stie limba "moldoveneasca") si Jeorjika un romanofon din moldova.

Mergi la http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere

daca te intereseaza subiectul si cere dreptul de a vota.

Domnu Goie 02:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buna Gutza,

Obviously the choice is yours, but I hope you see domnul Goie's accusations for what they really are. He says I don't speak the language, even though I have written articles in it. He also calls me a "românofob". Considering you and I have met before, I think you can judge that on your own. But please keep in mind that he accused me on other peoples' user talkpages of being an ex-KGB Smirnovist agent.

And, in regards to Jeorjika, he only has about 10 contributions to mo.wikipedia, and none to any other Wiki. He hasn't resurfaced in the past couple of days, and I wonder if he hasn't already moved on.

Ahh, and let me add that my primary concern is the future of mo.wikipedia, NOT keeping power as some have said. No matter who wins, I will be happy so long as they keep the promises they made.

Cheers. --Node

nu mai schimba mai miticule site-ul transilvaniei, bine ca schimbi inapoi si le satisfaci bucuria ungurilor, idiotule se vede ca esti din bucuresti, de-aia au indurat atata timp romanii de secole ca sa vii tu sa schimbi site-ul? nerusinatule, sa n-ai noroc

For future reference, this was about a revert in the article Transylvania. The comment above added 17:58, 28 October 2005 by 86.105.71.34. --Gutza ^{T T+} 09:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

--Anittas 18:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 20:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen your last August followup to my note on Nicaraguan Sign Language, and answered it over there. Regards, User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Jan Huss died in La Crosse, Wisconsin on February 21, 2006.He was listed as being prominent in your country.If you can get the La Crosse Tribune you will get his death notice and an article about him.His mother-in-law Emilia Regis died in January.Hugh Huss was a symphony conductor.Thank youRFD 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 I started an article about Hugo Jan Huss.I am a little nervous about this article.RFD 15:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut. Te-am contactat pt avem serioase probleme la articolul wikipedian despre Romanians. Dupa cum vezi, user-ii Jayig si administratorul SlimVirgin au pus cele mai joase cifre posibile. Cand am incercat sa intervin, punand numerele adevarate, am fost blocat pt "vanadalism", asa trebuie ca toti wikipedistii Romani sa facem ceva. Daca te intereseaza si vrei sa te alaturi, da-mi un email sau scrie pe pagina talk Romanians. Numai bine, NorbertArthur 2 Aprilie 2006

Above: NorbertArthur is telling me that Jayig and SlimVirgin are using the lowest possible population estimates in article Romanians. Noted, thank you -- I've been there before (i.e. in a similar dispute on another article), but on the "other" side. I believe in their approach: census data is all we should use, and being a member of a community doesn't give you special powers or special knowledge unless you can back it up. Sorry I can't be more sympathetic, but that's simply what I believe in. --Gutza ^{T T+} 12:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buna Gutza! Te deranjez pe pagina ta de talk pt ca sincer nu prea stiu cum trebuie procedat in astfel. user:Alexander007 mi-a adus insulte si a vandalizat pagina mea personala, asa ca as vrea sa fie blocat pt asta. Poti sa vezi aici ce a facut:[[2]],[[3]], [[4]]. Te rog frumos sa te uiti ce a scris Alexander007 acolo si cum ne-a insultat. Mersi si toate cele bune, NorbertArthur 13 April 2006

Salut Gutza. I directed one insult towards Norbert AFAIK, only after he did this: he assumed I could not read Romanian, so in English on my talk page he says he is not interested in having user:Romania unblocked; then one minute later, on User talk:Romania, he says he will do what it takes to get him unblocked. This disgusted me, and considering Wikipedia's policies, I overreacted and delivered this insult: "You're lame, Nobert. Move the fuck on." If you count me calling him a liar, that is two insults. However, I do not understand why Norbert later interpreted my statement "you liar" as referring to something on his user page, which is not the case. After he lied to me (it is not a case of him changing his mind one minute later, AssumingGoodFaith has its limits) about user:Romania, I got mad at him and retaliated by removing images that according to fair use policy probably don't belong, just as the 007 logo was removed from my page (exact same fair use policy). I certainly intended no vandalism, however, because I have seen such images removed without warning on numerous occasions. Of my insults to the sockpuppets of Bonaparte (see User talk:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry), there is no need to comment; I simply don't care. You may decide to issue a block if you want, but I was acting in the best interests of the Romanian Wikipedia community and of Wikipedia itself. User:Anittas on a regular basis delivers worse insults to all kinds of contributors, Romanian and otherwise, but is rarely blocked; though this is no excuse, of course. My objective is that User:Romania is to remain permanently blocked, and you can check User talk:Romania and User talk:Alexander 007 why, and I acted a bit "ruthlessly" in pursuit of my objective. Alexander 007 04:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of how strict the fair use policy is, an admin, User:Jkelly, removed the Wu-Tang Clan logo from Template:Wu-Tang Clan a few weeks ago. Alexander 007 04:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm not an admin on Wikipedia EN, I'm not someone you should lobby around. Regardless, please try to react in a more mature fashion. Cheers, Gutza ^{T T+} 17:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Gutza tu cati romani crezi ca sunt in lume? Eu si cu Norbert credem ca sunt peste 34 milioana. Avem si surse bune in acest fel, nu il poti bloca pe omul acela care il blocheaza pe norbert? --Chisinau 15:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut,

Please note the question at Talk:Mãlina Olinescu.

Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni 10:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hallo! would You mind to upload your nice Image:Lab color at luminance 25%.png, Image:Lab color at neutral luminance.png, Image:Lab color at luminance 75%.png to commons:Category:Color spaces, or even build up new subcategorie LAB - I'd like to use them at de:w:CIELab - thanks in advance - please post me an message, if You did so - more thanks & greetings --W!B: 01:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate,

The images I uploaded here are tagged GFDL, so please feel free to use them in any way you please on any local Wikipedia (as long as you don't violate the license, obviously). Please let me know if you need help with the technical part of it!

Cheers,

Gutza ^{T T+} 02:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I do not know about en-WP, but de-WP stopped storing images locally and puts all new files to commons, and sets all links to images to commons-links. in fact did You mean I should upload them? should I ask for deletion at en-WP afterwards? --W!B: 11:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know about the latest policies on en-WP, and wouldn't want to give you the wrong advice... I expect there is a tendency to move stuff to commons, given the note on the Upload page -- but again, I'm not sure, so please use your judgement. --Gutza ^{T T+} 07:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I will move them to commons, leave all Your text unchanged and adjust links at en: plus deletion - tomorrow.. ;-) afterwards it could be included to all lokal WPs - greetings --W!B: 03:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buna,

A inceput un vot pentru stergerea "Wikipediei Moldovenesti", o creatie a unui American, cu origini suspecte in Basarabia si care nu vorbeste limba wikipediei la care pretinde a fi sysop. Il cheama Node ue si pentru a crea impresia ca lumea doreste aceasta wikipedie, a apelat la toti utilizatorii rusi care au venit sa voteze de partea lui desi nu cunosc bine subiectul si li s-a spus ca voteaza pentru supravietuirea alfabetului chirilic. Asa a ajuns ca votul sa fie 31 pentru stergerea Mo wiki, si 42 impotriva stergerii - deci in alte cuvinte pentru pastrarea wikipediei in limba "moldoveneasca". Vino si voteaza aici[5] , ca sa sergem acesta creatura cu miros bolshevic, care insulta toti romanii de pe ambele maluri ale Prutului. Node ue le-a spus rusilor sa traduca mesajul lui in limba rusa si sa-l transmita mai departe. Trimite si tu mesajul acesta la toti utilizatorii romani-unionisti sau romani-moldoveni unionisti pe care-i cunosti pe en.wiki sau ro.wiki. Dapiks 23:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your attempt to improve this template, but it causes bleed over on all the talk pages that use it, so I rv'd for now. If you can fix the bleed over, I think your changes are fine. Rlevse 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sal.

am revenit pe wikipedia, si primul lucru pe care lam facut a fost sa incerc sa solutzionez problema Talk:Harghita County topicul Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) din paginile despre Counties of Romania. am sters numele magyare ale diviziunilor administrative ale regatului magyar trecute ca nume alternativ pt numele diviziunilor administrative ale Romaniei in paragraful de inceput, in conformitate cu conventziile stabilite de wikipedia. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

anul trecut am incercat sa solutzionez aceeasi problema dar din cauza ca nu am comunicat bine cu ceilaltzi editori romani, lucruruile au capatat un aspect superficial de "reglementat" (ma refer la Talk:Harghita/Vote)

nu shtiu daca ai fost in cunostintza de cauza cu votul privind numele alternativ al judetzului Harghita.

te informez (si voi informa si altzi editori romani) despre aceasta intentzie a mea de a reglementa articolele referitoare la Romania in acord cu conventziile enciclopediilor renumite.

de forma "riul Mures are nume alternativ Maros deoarece curge si prin Ungaria, judetzul Mures nu are nume alternativ Maros pt ca nu este impartzit de Romania cu Ungaria" Criztu 11:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banat article is not about Romanian Banat, but about entire Banat that belong to 3 countries. Map of Romania is placed in section named Romanian Banat which speak about it. I mean, if you speak about entire Banat, then you post map of entire Banat, if you speak about Romanian Banat only, then you post only map of Romanian Banat, etc. That is generally accepted look of the content of every article. So, please, do not revert this again, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this map ok? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Banat_location.png PANONIAN (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was looking at information for color spaces, and saw alot of links to absolute color space. I found content on answers.com that was from wikipedia, so I restored the content. Subsequently, I found your post on User:Notinasnaid regarding the request for deletion. I searched for a bit and was unable to find the archive of the request, so I though I should contact you to see if you have a link to it. Thanks, TJJFV 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Sorry for the late reply, but I was on vacation. You can't find any RfD because I asked for speedy deletion within the article. You can ask an administrator to dig the old content for you. My claim was basically that the very concept of absolute color space was nonsense. Apparently everybody agreed, so it was deleted. --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. In case you're wondering why I'm claiming the article was nonsense, try (a) to define "absolute color space" in relationship to color space and color model, and (b) try finding a non-Wikipedia definition for "absolute color space" on the net. --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut. Credeţi că ar fi o idee bună să scriu cuvintele acestui imn şi pe româneşte cu alfabetul latin, sau să las articolul în pace? Biruitorul 00:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the front page of the Novial Test Wikipedia it would be nice to have a Romanian translation of the following 2 sentences:

<>

Welcome to the Wikipedia in the Novial language!

You can read about the international auxiliary language Novial here.

<>

See the original request at Wikimedia Incubator here.

Thank you, Nov ialiste 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you dually license [6] under a Creative Commons license? The GFDL technically requires that any use of the material must be accompanied by a reproduction of the entire text of the license. While this is fine for a book, a manual, or an encyclopedia as a whole, it is largely unworkable for images or for reproducing a single article (in which the license text may be triple the size of the content). Also, I have used this image for the Example image used on the English Wikipedia, which shows up whenever someone clicks on the Insert image button in the edit window, and which may be viewed at [7]. —Centrx→talk • 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have never "thrashed around" rowiki, and did not complain to administrators about it (I have first asked them to take a stance on what has happened in here, and I am frankly pondering asking Jimbo for input, which seems to have been done in similar cases). Frankly, I have good reasons to despise the very fabric of many articles in there, and do so while reproaching to many admins over there the blatant fact that they all too often lack competence to identify and remove defamatory and fallacious content. I have approached admins there, and I have been approached by them. To the best of my knowledge, they form four categories in respect to this topic: admins who no longer contribute (in fact, one of them signaled to me a grossly antisemitic and article which has just been given approval by other admins!), admins who are not paying attention, admins who are not capable to identify the content, and admins who take part in the charade (one of the latter, in answer to a direct complaint, has trolled on my page here, and has let his friend Bonaparte use my IP's page on rowiki as his personal playground!). Add to this that even in cases where the topic is not at all controversial, rowiki is way below the standard demanded here; this does not mean that a lot of new information remains unchecked or unsorted, but that it is tolerated, endorsed, and even gets featured status while remaining inane, subjective, and, in some cases, not even properly wikified.

Please understand that the rot reaches too far to be solved without ample and exhausting debate. I think you will agree that what I do here is valuable enough not to have to leave it aside in order to engage in that sordid debate about stating the obvious. Also note that, having received such messages, I'd rather comment from the side than, to put it bluntly, do what you admins have pledged to be doing.

From what I know about you, you are a competent editor and admin. Just as there was no implication of your activities in my critique, there is no requirement for you to defend rowiki other than as a whole (I assure you your argument would be untenable otherwise). Dahn 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last message reads like an assumption of guilt on my part.

First of all, I wish to point out that it does not take expertise to detect blatant racism and unchecked language, nor to enforce wikipedia regulations (it is assumed that admins have understood them when they became admins). There is also no excuse for the repeated support for vandalism on the part of some admins.

Secondly, there is no requirement for me to take whatever steps in order to ensure that guidelines stepped over in such nonchalant manner are enforced, when it is known to me that admins have been watching those pages. Also, as I have tried to point out, if admins have tolerated insults aimed at me by a person who was banned as a vandal and sockpuppeteer on enwiki, Also consider that, in case the matters of racism were not already clear to admins there, you are asking me to basically go and convince them, all of them, that they were wrong! Instead, I am sounding up the alarm with admins who have proven themselves competent. Dahn 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer, but there are several reasons why I would rather continue this here. One of them is that I do not contend to make this a debate about wiki in general, but about its stringent problems. Note that, although I have expressed a will to have rowiki started anew, the attention of editors could actually go a long way in preventing such radical measures, if they are ever to be proposed. I have never policed rowiki, but incidents such as Leonte Tismăneanu, and dialogs with several users (such as the other ongoing one on my page) have led me to understand that rowiki is still far from achieving its most essential goals.

(I'll erase the personal detail you made public on my page, unless you specifically tell me not to.) Dahn 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that I do not enjoy entering debates with people who cannot find their way around simple wikipedia rules, and that I cannot possibly have a conversation of one against many just to prove the most obvious of points. Hard evidence? ro:Republica Socialistă Sovietică Evreiască, ro:Valter Roman, ro:Ghizela Vass, ro:Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. Dahn 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. No problem. (Btw, when I was looking through problematic articles on rowiki, I noticed some of them had been tagged for NPOV, which means things are moving in the right direction. Btw, I stress my belief thsat inflammatory and sourious content such as ro:Evrei comunişti should be deleted outright, not tagged.) Dahn 20:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other major objections I have. Consider that ro:Ion Luca Caragiale is an FA,although it does not cite any sources, does not clarify who said what and where, does not have a neutral tone, and largely reads like a rudimentary cliché work by 8th grade students (I suspect a large part of it was copied from standard literary comments of manuals and the likes of referate.ro). A huge number of articles in the literary section display a tone that can be detected by anyone as POV, and feature the most of whimsical statements. I could cite the example of ro:Radu Tudoran (see my comment on ro:Discuţie:Radu Tudoran, posted in November - nothing of which was ever answered, despite contributors still working on it, and nothing was done about the manifest problems; as I have said, there are tens of articles like that solely in that area, and I know that many of them have been checked several times over by admins, without any obvious result). Dahn 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had not noticed the first part of your last reply, and thus failed to answer. The "Evrei" list should not even be there, since it is created with a certain goal in mind - that of "proving" something about a community in its entirety (collective responsability, for better or worse, is a non sequitur in an NPOV text), and the text itself is phantasmagoria; a lot of the articles I also linked stem from the same debased reasoning, one almost universally rejected by historians (by which I also mean the majority of Romanian historians). Dahn 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you chjeck with an earlier version of that list, you will see precisely why it was created Let me also note that it is currently an article, and there is no way of having an article on "Communist Jews" or "Turkish Liberals" (perhaps categories, lists etc., but not articles); as an aside that article is Romania-oriented. English wikipedia does not have such articles or such statements in article. Instead, it has this: Jewish Bolshevism, which begins with identifying the phenomenon as a conspiracy theory. Dahn 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gutza, I have seen your edits on User talk:Jmabel. I'd like you to completely remove my name from your posts there. And I'd like you to explain how my name ended there. Dpotop 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your habits are very much like the ro.wiki edit style (I'm an admin, I do what I want). I do not want to have my name there, and this is justifiable, given the gravity of the accusations involved. Dpotop 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, D, be lenient. I have explained that it was a misunderstanding. Gutza not only accused you based on a mere problem with message order on Jmabel's page, he later retracted! Not only that, but striking your name out, instead of deleting it, is a customary measure of record keeping - since part of the conversation just below the mention of your name was me telling him that I was not talking about you, and since he didn't take the same liberty you did of erasing someone else's message, it was the best way to admit to an innocent mistake without making the text confusing for other readers. Dahn 17:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, I over-reacted. Gutza, please excuse me for this, it happened late in the night and I was tired. Dpotop 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen your proposed logo for Wikipedia and like it very much. It's a shame it didn't have success. --euyyn 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am vazut ca nu-ti place imaginea asta si deci te-ai decis sa o scoti nu? Care e problema ta? Ca am pus numele meu ca autor? E dreptul meu sa scriu atunci cand ma chinui sa manevrez o imagine de 20mb si o incarc pt. cei ca tine sa se amuze cand isi vad casa din satelit... Vin-o tu cu o imagine prin satelit mai buna si "facuta de tine" si mai vorbim... Bucharest-from-satellite-with-landmarks--masterminds.ro--5.3MB.jpg

P.S. Oricum linisteste-te ca am schimbat licenta pt. ca cei ca tine sa nu-si mai puna intrebari in legatura cu "produsele NASA", modificate... Mastermindsro 12:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:NNG iGO8 terrain daylight.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - does this help? Martinp23 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your Rfa

Hi Gutza,

I tried your new improved quickUnwatch, and it works perfect in my watchlist now, for all pages. A little bug, which has no real effect but you might find interesting: The "-w" also show up when I go to the Special:Watchlist/edit page. However, on this page, the "-w" still doesn't show up for pages where I've watched the talk page and the user page doesn't exist (which is almost exclusively user talk pages I've left warnings on). I've also watchlisted a nonexistant page (so I'll know if someone ever creates it again), and that doesn't have a "-w" either. Since this is on the edit page, where I can unwatch by clicking the box, it has no practical effect whatsoever, but I thought I'd mention it in case you found it interesting.

Thanks again for making that, I'll be using it heavily. Amazing the stuff you can find by accident around here... --barneca (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fixed that -- now quickUnwatch controls are shown exclusively on Special:Watchlist (as originally intended -- they should never have been shown on Special:Watchlist/edit in the first place). Thank you for reporting the problems! --Gutza ^{T T+} 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, yours works for me, Alex's doesn't. Since yours works, I've no incentive to debug his. Only benefit I can imagine is it sounds like his is faster; yours reloads the page, right? Still, that isn't an issue for me. Thanks, though. --barneca (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, thank you! --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop by and say congrats! :) Oh, and, it's my turn to ask you questions :P I'm having some trouble with CVS.... How would I sync my code to the CVS server (If it helps, I'm in linux, I can pull the code down, but, I can't for the life of me figure out how to upload it)? Again, congrats, on adminship! Feel free to ask me if you run into any problems! SQL^{Query me!} 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this belongs into your user space, and not in the article space? Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my bad. I was doing cross-wiki tests with a robot and didn't realize the namespace should be changed from one wiki to the other. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia_talk:Creating_a_bot#wpStarttime_not_served :

… Everything's working great, except the edit page I retrieve in order to get the token and the rest of the variables doesn't contain wpStarttime and wpEdittime. I get this:

<input type='hidden' value="" name="wpStarttime" />
<input type='hidden' value="" name="wpEdittime" />

If I retrieve the page with wget, I do get them (but of course with wget I'm not logged in; my script does get authenticated first). If I retrieve the page with a browser, I do get them. But if I retrieve the page with PHP's curl, nada. That obviously leads to edit conflicts and nil results. So, what gives?

Thanks,
Gutza ^{T T+} 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You likely missed to send the right cookies with curl. Ask me to send you sample code, if you stll need help. -- Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am propus articolul pentru a primi statutul de articol de calitate, însă cererea mea a fost repsinsă. Au existat multe obiecţii (chiar multe care nu aveau nicio legătură cu criteriile pentru WP:FA), şi le-am îndeplinit până acum pe toate (mai puţin unele dintre ele care erau păreri personale, şi nu ţineau strict de criteriile pentru articole de calitate). Acest lucru îl poţi vedea pe această pagină, unde se află conţinutul de la Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cluj-Napoca/archive1, la care am adăugat comentariile mele despre ce s-a făcut şi ce nu. A mai rămas doar textul articolului (proza), care după cum relatează ceilalţi utilizatori nu este foarte corect (calitatea limbii engleze folosite este slabă). Am înscris articolul pe pagina Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests, numai că va dura destul de mult până ce se va găsi un corector ortografic, care să verifice articolul. De aceea dacă ai timp, te invit şi pe tine să faci unele corecturi la articol. Cu mulţumiri, --Danutz (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da, înţeleg. M-am adresat nu neapărat pentru o corectură generală, ci în funcţie de timp pentru corectarea anumitor greşeli care sar în ochi. Deci, dacă vezi câte ceva greşit... --Danutz (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I report you or you'll gallantly revert yourself? Xasha (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing new text counts as a revert now? --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not new text, is just a rephrase of the May 27 version. So it's a partial revert, and it does count.Xasha (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of previous versions, this was genuine new text. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's there in the history subpage, so you really have no way to prove you weren't aware of it. Why not just undo your edit and discuss your change on the discussion subpage?Xasha (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my understanding is correct, you're saying that I'm guilty until proven innocent -- what happened to WP:AGF? I really, honestly, genuinely read the article for the first time today (as it has been referenced from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 28#Template:Romanian historical regions which I got involved in), found a glaring discrepancy between what the article said and what the source actually says and fixed the discrepancy. I don't see how it's my fault that others have also noted that same discrepancy in the past. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since what you've shown as my third edit wasn't a revert (per Wikipedia:3RR#I_have_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F), I haven't broken it.Xasha (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...you're actually an admin, too! Eh, can you disclose as to why you've blocked Bonny only for 24 hours? And would you mind cleaning up the mess at Moldova? --Illythr (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked ClaudiuLine for 24 hours at face value -- I'm neither a checkuser, nor familiar enough with Bonaparte to make an educated guess of whether ClaudiuLine is a sock. Regarding Moldova, you have the same editorial rights as myself, why would I need to get involved? --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I still have one legitimate edit left, it would be much nicer, if a Romanian editor did it, so that this Romanian-hating KGB employee can sit back and cackle with malevolent glee avoid further accusations of whatever.

As for Bonny - 'tis pretty obvious: he always does the same things - improve Romania's economy, then go on revert warring on his usual haunts. Once someone decides to battle him, he goes on to the ANI (etc) and makes some rather blunt comments about his quarry. This is, if memory serves, the third time he actually succeeded (although he had almost managed to get Dahn once). But oh well, I'll go poke Bogdan then. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing I see is a revert to Bogdangiusca -- am I missing something? --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four minutes too late, I s'pose... Nevermind, then. --Illythr (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to do what you requested (well, the important parts - I guess I am capable of renaming something, but I would have to know how to get it there in the first place...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I was just getting ready to shut down for lunch. Sorry, I would've liked to help. --JaGa (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest rather than usurping the accounts we merge them? Legal under the GFDL but I'm not sure if it is technicaly posible.Geni 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not doable since we can't change the names in the edit history.Geni 22:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we have the person's permission to do it. We cannot change the names in the edit history without a person's permission.Geni 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL demends that you preserve the history thus the name the person subbmitted to the history must be preserved.Geni 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does.

I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.

Geni 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't see that argument going anywhere it is irrelivant. The GFDL only talks about authors when dealing with a new history. We are dealing with an existing one where the only stipulation is to preserve it and add to it. You cannot change what is already there.Geni 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is worded the GFDL gives you the right to chose what name you are credited under. If you wish to use material under the GFDL you need to respect this.Geni 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We treat that as releasing the edits under a second name. A person is free to do that since they still hold the copyright. In short people are then free to use the edits under either name.Geni 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is certianly allowable to have two people with the same name in the history yes. The software may have issues with this however.Geni 23:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL is only interested in the name the person adds to the history when they release the work under the GFDL. Identity is a seperate issue.Geni 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. I had it myself a few days ago :) Biruitorul ^Talk 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Where would you like to host it? For now, I've pasted the raw text in my sandbox - you're free to work on it there, and I'll see what I can improve as well, before we release a final version. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied by e-mail. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove that rubber stamp "Resolved". The issue hasn't even been looked at, and you're being unnecessarily dismissive. Mael-Num (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your question on the archived thread, and in response: it was a misreading on my part. I thought you had changed the title to include "Content Dispute". Given that you were responding there initially to a content dispute, it seemed plausible that this renaming was your doing, as your edit was the first I saw with the revised title.

I know if I were in your position, with someone accusing me of something that I didn't do, I'd be upset. I'd feel even worse if I had endeavored to act in the best interests of my accuser. So, I'm doubly sorry for what I had said. Hopefully, this dispute will smooth itself out. Thanks for your efforts. Mael-Num (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help as user Dgtsyb is causing continous disruption, see here Talk:Signaling_System_7#Moving_Forwards. I don't as yet have the wiki knowledge to effectively deal with this user. Leedryburgh (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moldovan government's attitude towards Russia has no relation to the fading of the so called "movement for unification". Nor is joining CIS, which is incomparably less important for Moldova's independence that joining UN two years earlier. Insisting to bind the two, even if the source doesn't do it, is original synthesis (and OR since you claim "it's common knowledge"). Unless you self revert in your following two edits, I'll report you for 3RR .Xasha (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I do have a real life and I don't spend all my time checking your contributions. And the above isn't an ultimatum. Is a good faith attempt to resolve a situation without external intervention. The two edits limit was there to make sure you read my message. It wouldn't have been fair if I you left Wikipedia for a month, and I reported you in the meantime. The report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Gutza reported by Xasha (Result: )Xasha (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. Sounds pretty "Russian-oriented", even "pro-Russian" to me. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gutza. Admins are supposed to have skill in resolving disputes. Please call upon that skill, since it doesn't look good for an admin to go over 3RR on a major article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider restoring the full move protection that was there before. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should report yourself first.Xasha (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! On 9/25/08 I self nominated an article I wrote on that date for "Did you know." Battle of Blanco Canyon No one ever ruled one way or the other - I am curious why it appears to be the only article that was not found to be eligible, et al. Thanks, and in any event, I thank you in advance for your any assistance you can give...JohninMaryland (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did what I could. Let me also thank you for the kind words you left on my talk page. Today reminded me of my old days on ro.wiki. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well; I'll help but, I need to do some catching up on my work, yesterday was lost for me to wikipedia. You may also want to take a look at my last edit here [[8]]Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should see WP:RBI. Three very good letters, those RBI. I especially like I. It seems to be very helpful in this case. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean (honest), and I'm not sure you can explain further. Thank you for the intention, though. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to see the original complaint (I couldn't find it, because it'd be taken down). The problem is, Gutza, that although you say "you always lose" when you make personal attacks, by blocking, you grant a little victory to the undesirables on Wikipedia. There's a saying in an area of English law called equity that someone who makes a claim must come with "clean hands" - in other words, if you want to complain about others then you have to be doing the right thing yourself. I think you do need to adjudicate in these situations, however tiresome that might be. All those things you quoted at me: that was after a long build up over a long period of time, and look at what it was responding to. I bet he had a right old laugh after he saw your block. Wikidea 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, did you see this? Wikidea 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're trying to do the right thing, and of course I understand where you're coming from. I'm disappointed that good editors get divided by bad editors. Anyway, let's leave it at that. Wikidea 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message there Gutza. We'll see where it goes, if anything. As I said, I don't like these things. Wikidea 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With some more information, you're welcome to leave a message here. Wikidea 11:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... Xasha (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Indeed, given this, I'm not even sure a warning was necessary - we're past that stage. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Do you have User talk:Ukhome still watchlisted? He immediately uploaded a new picture after you deleted the last one, claiming to be the copyright holder.
Cheers, --Amalthea^Talk 14:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for taking care of it. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, delete the following:

• Category:Communes in Moldova (communes with be categorified by district)
• Communes of Anenii Noi district, an article I mistakenly created forgetting the word "Category"
• Category:Balti (the category is duplicated, w/ and w/o dicritics)
• Category:Grasslands of Moldova (it is a legitimate category in principle, but not needed for Moldova, it is empty; someone can create it again later, if it turns out needed) - delete over redirect (aparently redirect does not work for categories.

Thank you very much. Dc76\^talk 11:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't have the time to look into these properly and I don't want to rush into deleting them. The only one I would've deleted on request was already deleted (your mistakenly created article). --Gutza ^{T T+} 12:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, Dc76, you can tag the categories for deletion yourself per WP:CSD#C1 if they have been unpopulated for at least four days. --Amalthea^Talk 12:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I just wanted to pass the issue to someone so that I can think of something else. There is not rush. Also, I don't even now how to tag a cat for deletion, despite being around for quite a while. :) What tag should I insert? Dc76\^talk 12:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Amalthea's reply above, you should be able to find the data starting from there (I don't know either). --Gutza ^{T T+} 13:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stick {{db-c1}} or {{db-catempty}} on the page, give a meaningful edit summary, and consider notifying the creators of the categories. --Amalthea^Talk 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you very much. Dc76\^talk 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you already deleted 2 of them. As for the last one, i removed the redirect, since it does not work for categories. But the category itself can stay, even empty, since it is present for all other countries. Similar to a category "Ports in X", where X is landlocked. In theory, the country can aquire access to the sea in the future... OK, as of now, this issue is closed. Thank you very much, both of you, for help and for letting me know how to do such things in the future. Dc76\^talk 21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion in this article's talk page, I made a proposal [9] and gave its rationale [10]. You are receiving this standard message because during the last 12 months you have editted either this article or its talk page, or both. Dc76\^talk 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you are aware of any boot able to deliever simmilar messages automatically, please do mention it to me. If I do this again by hand, i'll boil out. :) Dc76\^talk 01:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, User:Runteldat is not blocked, so the "blocked indef" template doesn't quite work, though it looks more and more likely that that is what will happen. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 00:48

foo

You might need to use {{YesAutosign}}, you could be excluded per "It will ignore unsigned comments from people with lots of edits, as it assumes that they should know better by that point."¹⁾ Of course I have no idea how many "lots of edits" actually are, it's quite as possible that adding two sections at once is too much for it, or that it never signs anything you put on your own talk page. :)
Cheers, and sorry for the stalking, Amalthea^Talk 22:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking Is Good (tm). (I am joking, stalking isn't good, it's just that I appreciated Amalthea's input on this; I do not condone stalking; this was intended as humor/satire; any constructs that may or may not imply that I am endorsing stalking shall be treated as personal attacks and shall be dealt with as such; this in turn is a joke/satire as well, to the extent that a reasonable Wikipedian able of critical thinking construes it as such within the bounds of logic.) --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, you know what? SineBot is simply down since this morning, hasn't edited since 5am. :) I was wondering myself since I saw lot's of unsigned comments today.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might conceivably be an explanation. Duh! :-) --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your computers are broken i made a contribution not a test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.41.193 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you removed a sourced letter-to-the-editor from a peer-reviewed journal in Aspartame controversy as not a reliable source while further down in the article another letter to the editor is allowed to stay, linked to this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18560494 Double standards? Biased administrators? Immortale (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget COI and being payed by the industry, if you want to include all bad faith assumptions. The EHP letter is properly identified as a letter in the body of the article, your reference purported to be factual. But then again, this is an editorial decision, and since I didn't take or threaten to take any administrative action I don't see why you're dragging my status as an admin into the discussion. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were you the creator of the diagram on Ram pump? (Figure 2) If so, nice work! On the talk page, there a discussion of another page that uses the same diagram and the same text, and was either plagiarized by WP, or plagiarized from WP. It looks to me like the latter, but I thought you might be able to shed some light on it.

Thanks! Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there, thanks for the heads up! --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Sorry I reverted your edit to FreeOTFE earlier - someone blanked the page, and I tried reverting it back again. Looks like another editor beat me to it and I reverted back to the wrong version though :( Nuwewsco (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProiect Dacia Invitaţie}} --Codrin.B (talk) 20:20, 11 January 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) 04:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Digital reproduction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Basically a dicdef. Can't find any indication this is a specific term of art that would require its own Wikipedia article.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. If it didn't grow organically in the 16 years since I decided it should be more than a redirect then it probably deserves to be deleted. --Gutza ^{T T+} 08:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Hi Earlon12 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your file here is a very cool example of very rare color space, that caused bugs in ffmpeg and chrome (also because of embedded ICC profile, but APP14 Adobe marker that signals YCCK what the most problematic). I see that Wikipedia thumbnailer failed to provide a proper thumbnail, is there a way to fix it? 109.252.90.66 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting; I double-checked now with Adobe CC, and the raw file at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Channel_digital_image_CMYK_color.jpg is interpreted as CMYK. I had no idea it's actually something else; even judging by the filename you can tell I always ever intended it to be CMYK, not some exotic format. --Gutza ^{T T+} 09:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can read about its bugs here: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/9085#comment:22 and here https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1115101#c4 and here: http://halicery.com/Image%20Decoders/JPEG/JPEG%20notes/CMYK.html I managed to found some other samples of not pure CMYK, so hopefully this will be fixed. 109.252.90.66 (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]