User talk:EddyVadim

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to László Tőkés, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 15:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to László Tőkés with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Democratic Liberal Party (Romania), you may be blocked from editing. — Abhishek ^Talk 11:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeated violations of Wikipedia editing policies including neutrality, edit warring, undiscussed/unexplained content removal and on occasions writing about living people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene^talk 12:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk pages

Hi EddyVadim. I just want to remind you to do two things:

Use the edit summary field to describe or explain the edits you make.
Use the article talk page to discuss controversial changes rather than edit warring, as you are doing on Romania. Wikipedia is a community effort, and as such it requires communication within the community.

You're making positive contributions overall. I wouldn't want to see you get blocked again for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSFLAG and WP:MOSBOLD

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corneliu Vadim Tudor

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Nik thestoned 14:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ion Iliescu, you may be blocked from editing. While disruptive before, this is now bordering on vandalism. Please desist in making large changes to Biographies without first reaching some form of consensus for the changes you're making. Nik thestoned 14:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT MUST I DO ????/ CONSEMNSUS BECAUSE?/...WHAT DID I DO WROGN???/ DID I ADD FALSE INFORMATION?????????

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT HAVE I DONE TO BE TREATED LIKE THIS?..VANDALISM? OF WHAT VANDALISM?..I HAVE ADDED CORRECT INFORMATION AND DELETED SLANDEROUS AND DEFAMATORY TEXTX AS REQUESTED IN THE PAGE....WHATT CONSENSUS MUST I GET..AND WITH WHO???

I have restored your edits at Corneliu Vadim Tudor.

Be extra careful if you remove text that is cited to a source. Most editors consider that vandalism. Especially if you are removing negative information that is already referenced to a source, that looks like white-washing, which would also get reverted.

However, what you did was mostly remove uncited controversial claims, which is fine.

You're doing fine. It will take a while to become accustomed to the culture here. You may want to read Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. That's how things are supposed to work. The person who reverted you didn't do anything wrong either, he was just part of that cycle. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Iliescu

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ion Iliescu. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Archimandrite Arsenie Papacioc

Excuse me, please, my carelessness, I really would not accuse you in something! It's my mistake. I shell try to be diligent, for not bring discomfort for others. Again, forgive me!--Noel baran (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it

It is unlikely that you are not by now familiarized with the binding wikipedia guidelines and policies on decent behavior and reciprocal respect among editors (WP:CIV, WP:NPA), or with the WP:BATTLE policy. Judging by your latest edits, you are in breach of these, and being disruptive as a result (WP:DIS). With edits summaries such as this, this or this, you have just made it clear that you are not here to promote the writing of an encyclopedia. My next move is to report you on WP:AN/I, just so you know. Dahn (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for for threats, personal attacks, and ethnic-based attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Naghi

Please note that there is long-standing consensus that death notices do not remain for more than one month unless the dead person has a Wikipedia article. If you believe that George Naghi is notable, it would be better to write an article about him rather than keep adding his name to the death list. Without an article, the death notice will continue to be removed in accordance with consensus. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your first article! I have added a couple of references. If you want to move the article beyond a stub, you can add more material, for example, the dispute over his fortune [1]. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Romanian protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Romania

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) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Crin Antonescu photo still.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Crin Antonescu photo still.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Three recent edits you have made to the Days of the year pages have either been removed or sustantially altered to reflect the information contained within the associated article. Please refrain from adding non-notable events or persons to the WP:DOY pages and from making up details that are not supported by the information in the associated articles. You stated one person to be a communist leader yet nowhere in the article can that claim be found or even infered. You stated in another edit an "official" casualty total to an earthquake and the article plainly states the figures are "estimated." Ken Tholke (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deletion on 27 July

Please do not delete the news about Romanian's suspended prsident, you may not be happy with this news. But WP cannot serve your subjective desires.Egeymi (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Portal:Current events/2012 July 27. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstatement of President of Romania

The president is only reinstated at the moment the decision becomes law, which means it must be published in the Official Monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvrous (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edit

Why did you revert my edit of the Romania infobox?Silvrous (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to look at almost any country article; None mention the leaders of the houses of Parliament. In the Constitution of Romania, the Parliament is clearly presented as separate from the Government. I urge you to start discussing this issue, it's only this way that we might reach a consensus. And I also urge you to not revert the whole edit, since it contains several improvements aside from the disputed edit; You may simply edit what you disagree with the normal way if you wish. Silvrous (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of bold

Hello EddyVadim,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romania&diff=529431108&oldid=529009419

Did you know that bold text is only meant to be used in certain circumstances? Have a look here and please don't bold "Romanians" in the infobox again – it's already at the top of the list anyway. Best wishes, CsDix (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again EddyVadim,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romania&curid=25445&diff=529971376&oldid=529891267

(Sorry but I found the same situation in Serbia and Ukraine pages..also in others..please stop from reverting this!)

I've now corrected the formatting in the infoboxes at the Serbia and Ukraine pages, so are you now happy for me to correct it on the Romania page too? CsDix (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...I've gone ahead and made the correction. CsDix (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

As you are the one making multiple unexplained changes to this article the onus is on you to explain and source them. I would remind you that all unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Britmax (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2014

Please stop edit warring on Deaths in 2014. The person you are adding does not appear to be notable. If you think they are, please bring it up on the talk page. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Oliver Hardy.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oliver Hardy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Laurel and Hardy.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Laurel and Hardy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Crin-antonescu-pnl.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Crin-antonescu-pnl.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Peripitus (Talk) 20:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all uploaded images deleted

Hi EddyVadim. I have been looking at your image uploads and found that your claim you took them yourself does not seem correct. One was copied from an image on commons, a few I can see on other websites and one was credited in the exif data to "BOGDAN MARAN / AFP PHOTO". I am taking the view then that none of the images where ones you took with a camera. All appear to be images taken from websites or other sources. Please note that you can only claim 'self-made' for an image you took, personally, with a camera. Every upload to Wikipedia must credit the original source and copyright holder. If I have made a mistake here please leave a note on my talk page. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sevastopol

Please stop changing "Ukraine" to "Russia" in the Sevastopol article; there is no consensus for such a switch. You are welcome to start a discussion on the article's talk page, however.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014; 18:42 (UTC)

Juncker Romania nominee

I've cited multiple times how you're wrong. Whatever potential future change in Romania's nomination may be, for now Cioloș is and remains its top candidate and will not be changed until Juncker says so. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on responding at all or just blatantly ignoring the facts? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd only had the slightest modicum of maturity to wait until you had (I'm guessing until you could find) a source instead of a round-robin of rvs, everything would have been so much easier. I'm not going to weep over Cioloş's nomination failing because I couldn't give a damn about either candidate, I just try to abide by our editorial and journalistic standards on confirmation before putting the cart ahead of the horse. I hope you learn you to do this in the future. Ciao. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Mihai (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Victor Ponta

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case was at the 3RR noticeboard (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited October 25, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hungarian and Romanian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:NOTHERE. Long term warring on a variety of articles including Romania.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Your block log shows your inability to collaborate. You seem to pay no attention to feedback from others. If you see Wikipedia as just a vehicle for promoting your own views, you should probably create your own website. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

This is just not ok! The person who asked you to block me is Romanian, like me, and clearly has something against me and my views because I made some small changes that do not alter or affect anything nor is it vandalism. He deliberately changes everything I bring new to the page and deliberatelty tries to confront me by doing this. I wish not to confront him and that is why I have not started a discussion with him. I think this is an abuse, I believe that my contributions to the Romania page have been good-willed and not made to start edit wars with no one. I see that this fellow, Biruitorul has more power here and more friends to apply to. My views are non of nobodies concern for they have not affected my contributions to the Romania page, I've only added historic fact and not personal subjective views. I ask for you to relieve me from this ban. I've been banned for two weeks some days ago got the possibility to post again, because of the same user that has clearly something against me personally. I don't know anyone to apply as he did, so I say this to you, in good will: See the changes I made, and analize yourself if I have done major changes or added things that prezent some kind of personal view. If I didn't do anything that bad, please revert my ban. I find this all to unfair. I hope you'll rethink this harsh punishment. Thank you.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

I have read the respective terms. I see that there is no way in protecting what I bring new to the pages I edit from the revertion others do just to spite. As much as anybody tries to say it's nothing personal, when edit wars appears between two conationals it is impossible to say it's not what it is. I ask once more in good will for this ban to be reverted. I shall avoid any further conflicts with persons that take pleasure in reverting other peoples posts just to spite them and create conflicts because they are conationals (Biruitorul being a self-declared ultra-nationalist that seemingly took offence of a historic event I added to a page that doesn't represent my personal view but pure recognized history). I have seen what happens and the arbitrary situation I've been involved in. I only wish to add constructive information and historic facts that are objective from any point of view. Please revert this bann for it is too much being indefinite. I have no intention of creating a new conflict with other conationals who want to bann others just for fun. If something I'll write will be reverted I'll not undo it no more. It's a promise for I am tired of dealing with these kind of foolish and imature people. Thank you and please revert this disproportionate penalty for I have learned my lesson of how to deal with them.

Decline reason:

It appears that you have either not read or not comprehended WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Well, it's been some days now and I had plenty of time to analize my actions. Indeed I find that it was uncalled for to engage myself in an edit war without being responsive to the other party whatsoever. I have to say it was my fault for being unresponsive to debate as fairly requested ahead of the santions I received. In many ways I now find my attitude to be arrogant and misplaced. I am trully regreting my initial stances and I ask for another chance to prove my good intentions in providing information and other data in a responsible and consensual matter for the benefit of all. It is the right way and I now know it and believe it with all my strenght. Please have the disposition as to lifting my ban having the guarantee that I will abide with the rulls and regulations this site require and will, with all disponibility, be always within the limits and in control, avoiding any further sanctions upon myself. I thank the previous users who have situated themselves in a position that showed my the wrongs I have commited. To your consideration.

Accept reason:

I've unblocked your account on the following conditions.

You have agreed to a 1RR restriction. That is, one revert per 24 hours across all of Wikipedia.
You understand that if you are blocked again in the next 12 months, the indefinite block would be restored.

PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:- would you object to an unblock on a give them enough rope basis? PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an unblock if EddyVadim will accept a permanent WP:1RR restriction. That is, one revert per 24 hours across all of Wikipedia. The other condition would be that if he is blocked for any reason in the next 12 months, the indefinite block would be restored. Before unblocking, I recommend that the admin should get his acceptance to these conditions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight:- I agree with the specific conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyVadim (talk • contribs)

File:VictorPonta.png

Where on the source page does it say the image is released under a creative commons license? PhilKnight (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:VictorPonta.png

Thanks for uploading File:VictorPonta.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romanian presidential election, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:VictorPonta.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VictorPonta.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Victor Ponta PES.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Victor Ponta PES.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Victor Ponta PES2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Victor Ponta PES2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians were nomads?

Hi. What do you think about the inclusion of the article Origin of the Romanians into Category:Nomadic_groups_in_Eurasia? If you are against, please submit a comment at Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians 84.197.146.185 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiac arrest.

See here for more detail on why I reverted you on Deaths in 2015. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian Cioloș

Please stop your disruptive editing. The prime minister is appointed with the approval of parliament. Sorin Cîmpeanu was only interim, without the approval of parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Archer (talk • contribs) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox bolding

Hello. Please stop adding bolding to the infoboxes. It doesn't work properly as you cannot bold the winning party (as this is an automatic input). If you want this as standard across all articles, then by all means start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox election, but in the meantime, stop changing the infoboxes. Thanks, Number 5 7 13:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Incomplete updates

I appreciate you making the effort to update the election results, but the way that you do it (i.e. updating some figures but not others) is really unhelpful, as it leaves the results table with some figures that are correct and others that are not. If you are going to update the table, you should update all figures – please make sure you do this in future. Thanks, Number 5 7 16:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Stop de add a non free photo, or I will make a WP:AN. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your photo. It is a lie. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[2] --Panam2014 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:OTRS. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no proof. If you continue, you will be blocked. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

It's been over two months since I've been blocked. I understand my violation of the rules and understand that there is no way around them so I engage myself in obeing the rules from now on with no more violations.These months served for a well deserved penalty from which I learned to respect the rules so I request to please remove this block.Thank you in advance!

Decline reason:

This sounds nice and reasonable. It sounds as nice and reasonable as your 2014 unblock request that got you unblocked. And in between we find you edit warring, with this for flavor. Sorry, I don't see why we should trust the same assurances again. Huon (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

My response to administrator Huon. I was wrong then and again in June, that is without question. I've been working seriously on my anger management. In the defence of the genuinely law-abiding me may I say that I've been a member for years, I had a positive activity for most of those years, I realize that I made mistakes years ago and this year also but I got punished for it, I waited a reasonable period and I asked to be unblocked because there are many positive informations,data and other things I think I can still bring to Wikipedia in the years ahead. I'd like to know that mistakes do get punished but positive activity is not erased by these mistakes and after a period of reflection on those mistakes one can be redeemed. An example of something I'd like to add is in the deaths in 2017 section, there are Romanian personalities that are not added in the list and I'd like to be allowed at least to edit this section, where I was mostly active in the last months prior to the block. I apply to your goodwill and although I know that I got a second chance years ago I'd like to get one again because I feel responsible to bring something good to Wikipedia, the place where I get a lot of information almost on a daily basis since before I became a member. Otherwise I wouldn't bother anyone for this unblock request. Please reconsider my plea. PS: If the answer is still no, I won't insist any longer.

Decline reason:

The answer is still no, largely as per Huon; based on your previous actions it is impossible to take you at your word. You may request unblock under the Standard offer in six months if you wish. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21054 was submitted on Apr 04, 2018 23:34:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]