User talk:Algav: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:04, 7 December 2013

Problems with upload of File:FC Sfintul gheorghe.png

Thanks for uploading File:FC Sfintul gheorghe.png. 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) 14:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In 2011–12 FC Dacia season, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Buiucani.gif

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vasili Pavlov.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Vasili Pavlov.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 that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Nicolae Josan 2012.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nicolae Josan 2012.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.fcdacia.md/ru/photos/dacia_2_buiucani_olimpia_2_1_0/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan/Romanian

With the court decision explicitly stating that the declaration of independence prevails over the constitution in this matter, I don't see why the infobox should mention "Moldovan" anymore, other than in a footnote. --illythr (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite decision of the court, constitution remains the main document of the state. And until there is written that Moldovan is the official language of the state it remains unchanged. More than that decision was a political game because decision of Constitutional Court should be based only on constitution, and judge if NEW law adopted by Parliament does not conflict with CONSTITUTION, but not if 2 historical documents mean the same or not. --Algav (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they weaseled around that by saying that the Declaration of independence is the same document as the constitution. Of course it's a silly political game, but it is also the country's supreme court who made that ruling. Not much to do here, other than try and keep the nationalist wave from overrunning the article in the next few days. --illythr (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, now the game is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.50.9 (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political game it was from the start, when they named the language Moldovan in the 1994 Constitution. Actually this was a restoration from a judicial point of view. I think we all knew that the language was Romanian from a linguistic point of view. Now it also became official in the Constitution (as the Declaration of Independence makes commons body with the other dispositions of the Constitution). You know, Moldovan was never a language just a political name given to Romanian in Moldova (that was also the consensus here at Wikipedia, when we first talked about the content of the article ”Moldovan language”). Now it still is a political term but, officialy, it does not prevail anymore over ”Romanian”.--Danutz (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Moldovan" ("Moldavian") was the name given to the language back when nationalism, as a political tool for keeping the populace in line with the ambitions of its politicians, wasn't invented yet, and meant simply the language spoken by the inhabitants of Moldavia. So this game's been going on since at least 19th century. But that's all old stuff. Concerning the new developments, I do approve the change - it made no sense teaching the language under a different name in schools - just not the weird way they did it, by sewing together two different documents, written by different people for different purposes. Besides, the Declaration "lies" at this point - it says "recalling ... the laws reintroducing Romanian as the state language and the Latin alphabet on August 31, 1989," whereas the actual laws it references use the name "Moldovan". Instead of delving into that murk, they should've organized a referendum, which would've led to the same result without providing the opposition with ammunition about how this was, once again, not a decision of "the people", but of the "ruling elite".

But this is all politics. What matters for us here is the representation of this mess in the relevant article. Any objections or suggestions to this version? --illythr (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this from a practical point of view. You travel to a country and try to find facts about it and get confused because they call the same language a different name. Somebody may get confused to find out that there's an Austrian, Australian or Mexican language. Sure enough there are differences between Spanish in Mexico and Spanish in Spain or Argentina. But, for example, if we travel to Mexico and buy a dictionary to Spanish, that will solve our communication problems. One single name for the same language should not be a political issue but a simple reality. --Ciprianboboc (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)ciprianboboc[reply]

Historically speaking, foreign travelers to Moldova have indicated that Moldovans call their language Romanian (often giving the quote "Sti romineasti?", in which they meant "Știi românește?"). Allthough the point of moldovenists was always that the name "Romanian" only apperared with the creation of the modern state Romania, that is simply wrong: look at Aromanian populations in the Balkans which have had no contact with Romanians since the 9th century, but still use the phrase "Zburăști arumaneaști?" (they have a tendency to put "a-" before many words.)

Anyway, my opinion is that a referendum wont help this issue, at least not just yet. For a referendum to be organised there will need to be an extended campaign to raise awareness of both terms historical use, and the pragmatic benefits of using both of the terms. Honestly I think that using the term "Moldovan" will cause further language depreciation (compare afrikaans and nederlands). Nonetheless, it will cause Moldova economic losses due to failure of catering Romanian and international businesses who would want to externalise their Romanian language services (including call centers, translators, etc.). --Danutz (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's funny to see Illythr edits. However, I think he understands there is no train back to Soviet Union..

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 ::::Historically speaking, foreign travelers to Moldova have indicated that Moldovans call their language Romanian (often giving the quote "Sti romineasti?", in which they meant "Știi românește?"). Allthough the point of moldovenists was always that the name "Romanian" only apperared with the creation of the modern state Romania, that is simply wrong: look at Aromanian populations in the Balkans which have had no contact with Romanians since the 9th century, but still use the phrase "Zburăști arumaneaști?" (they have a tendency to put "a-" before many words.)
 ::::Anyway, my opinion is that a referendum wont help this issue, at least not just yet. For a referendum to be organised there will need to be an extended campaign to raise awareness of both terms historical use, and the pragmatic benefits of using both of the terms. Honestly I think that using the term "Moldovan" will cause further language depreciation (compare [[afrikaans]] and [[nederlands]]). Nonetheless, it will cause Moldova economic losses due to failure of catering Romanian and international businesses who would want to externalise their Romanian language services (including call centers, translators, etc.). --[[User:Danutz|Danutz]] ([[User talk:Danutz|talk]]) 09:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
+::it's funny to see Illythr edits. However, I think he understands there is no train back to Soviet Union..