User talk:Spiridon MANOLIU~enwiki

Please, if you can, use french, spanish or romanian languages. My english is poor and when I must use it, I need a help from one of my friends... Thank you, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vlachs: were are they from ?

File:Valaques-Vlachs.jpg

Well: if the Vlachs of later Middle Ages are not the result of the evolution of the Latin groups in early Middle Ages, were are they from ? From Dacia (opinion of the south-slavic and some romanian historians) ? But the german, hungarian and russian historians have another opinion: the ancestors of the Romanians came from the balkan area, their ancestors are the early latin groups from the Byzantine empire... Who's right ? Who's wrong ?

I didn't say that the Vlachs did not evolve from Latin groups in the Middle Ages. I simply said the exact relationship is not proven. You were suggesting adding some very specific statements that, as far as I am aware (and what you seem to be suggesting above), are only opinions. Although I think most scholars think that the Vlachs would either have evolved in the BE or in Dacia (or both) I have read some opinions that they may have come from Latin groups further west (don't know how serious those opinions are). --Mcorazao (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a political incidence in history when some historians wrote a nomadic history about the Latin groups : germans, hungarians and russians historians support the south-north migration idea against the romanian arguments about their ancient history in Transylvania and east-Moldavia (Bessarabia), but south-slavic and greek historians support the north-south migration idea against the aromanian arguments about their ancient history in the Balkans; some romanian historians support this thesis because that's good for the romanian thesis about Transylvania... Oh, boy !

The answer is in the languages. Why are the Romanian and Aromanian languages so different ? (in Aromanian: no hungarian and very few slavic words, but many greek words from the early Middle Age; in Romanian: many slavic and hungarian words, and the greek words are all in their slavonic version).

I don't dispute your opinion (I think you are probably right) but this is original research (albeit "original" in the sense of your choosing to side with one segment of the scholars based on your own insight). So far as I know this has not been proven to the satisfaction of the general community of scholars. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery, mystery... if we refuse to consider that the early Latin groups in the lower Danube have a different evolution in the north and the south side, as the gallo-romanic groups who given a Langue d'Oïl in the north of France and a Lengua d'Oc in the south...

Not sure what the means but anyway ... --Mcorazao (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion on Vlachs

Hello, about Vlachs, the actual formulation about languages (with the right reference) is OK, isn't ? --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking whether I think your theory about how the languages formed is correct?

--Mcorazao (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...in the article. I think YOUR theory is right, and I have not another theory.

In another side, I say and repeat: "Even without historic texts for proved it, the East-romanic languages (so, the Vlachs) can't come from another origin that the people's latin language spoken in the eastern side of the Roman empire. But we HAVE a prove: Theophanes and Simocattas attest in the VIth century than the autochtons of Haemos (today Balkans) speak latin... If we have doubts about THIS origin, logically we must suppose an Italian or Rhaetian origin for these poor Vlachs ! !"

Vishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with what's there.

I honestly am not familiar with all of the theories out there and what proof there is. What you're saying makes sense. It is certainly true that there were always people speaking Latin in various parts of the East. In any event feel free to write down whatever you have references for.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright issue

Mr. Manoliu, I'm sorry to inform you that images such as this one cannot automatically be considered copyright-free. For a reproduction of an original work of art to be publishable, you either have to own the copyrights to the original image or upload an image originally created by an author who died more than 70 years ago, or whose work is uncopyrighted for some other reason (because the author released it, because it is a public monument, etc.) These issues are detailed on the policy page on wikimedia commons, which is accessible during uploading, and which editors are asked to read before uploading. Believe me, I would normally consider those images a very valuable addition to wikipedia, however we cannot upload copyrighted material on commons, and we can only upload a very limited number of such material elsewhere. I don't think we can justify their use under the license you provided, unless you also own the copyright to the work of art itself. If you do, and I do not dispute that you may, please ask experienced editors on wikimedia commons to explain how you can register an emailed verifiable release of the original image or its reproduction into the public domain. Otherwise, all those images will be deleted sooner or later (and, yes, in case no such copyright info is provided, I myself think they should be deleted and will ask commons to do so). Thank you. Dahn (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Dahn

Nu ţin neapǎrat ca în articolul francez despre Jules Perahim sǎ figureze tabloul "România", dar ar fi pǎcat (pentru Wikipedia) sǎ nu figureze niciunul, când ele figureazǎ pretudindeni, mai ales în siturile, publice, ale celor care le vând. Idealul ar fi sǎ ṣtiu sǎ creez acele legǎturi, ca aceea pe care mi-aţi fǎcut-o în mesajul Dumneavoastrǎ, astfel încât, dacǎ cititorul nu poate vedea imaginile în Wiki din pricina problemelor de copyright, sǎ poatǎ ajunge la ele mǎcar prin legǎturi... Din pǎcate, nu stǎpânesc încǎ aceastǎ tehnicǎ, iar pe de altǎ parte, astfel de legǎturi nu ar însemna oare cǎ facem reclamǎ celor care vând operele respective? --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draga Spiridon Manoliu, Cu parere de rau nu am cartea lui Iurie Colesnic. Nu stii unde as putea s-o cumpar? Daca e nevoie de informatii mai personale, ca sa nu le punem pe WP, eu am emailul activat. Dc76\^talk 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eu ma refeream la prezenta pe commons, si la folosirea tablourilor in orice articol. Mi-e teama ca aceasta nu ar putea fi justificata in sine, desi exista posibilitatea de licenta "fair use" pentru (de regula) o singura imagine (intotdeauna) intr-un singur articol de pe o anumita wikipedie. Daca acele tablouri sunt postate pe internet, se pot face trimiteri catre ele in legaturile externe ale unui articol, dar, din nefericire, nu si daca siturile in cauza sunt comerciale (au ca obiect vanzarea tablourilor), pentru ca ar fi considerate "spam" si publicitate. Dahn (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Va rog sa scuzati intarzierea cu care raspund. Va multumesc pentru urarile de bine (mi-e teama ca nu vorbesc romanes dincolo de cateva cuvinte, dar am putut intelege mesajul dvs - poate ar trebui sa precizez ca, in ciuda faptului ca m-am inscris la proiectul despre romi, nu apartin comunitatii rome). In rest, daca am inteles bine, pot cere stergerea imaginilor de pe commons? Dahn (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join the new Moldovan Wines project !

Hello, maybe you will be interested in development of the Moldovan Wine articles. If yes, I am pleased to invite you to join it on the Project:MoldovanWines project page. Best regards, --serhio ^talk 10:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cnacuba and Multumesc for the invitation about the wines, but... I'm not competent... a trebuit chiar sa renunt la alcool din pricina ficatului care nu prea mai lucreaza... et je ne voudrais pas illustrer le "Principe de Peter" ! ;-) --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mersi pentru oferta de copiere. Lasati-ma/lasa-ma sa incerc sa o mai caut. Stiu ca au aparut vreo 5 volume! Poate vorbiti/vorbesti despre o carte mai veche care ulterior a fost dezvoltata de Iurie Colesnic in mai multe volume... Daca e 1992, asa pare. Daca dupa o vreme nu reusesc va/iti spun si te rog sa faci copia (ideal ar fi sa o poti scana; in orice caz, e fizic de lucru cel putin o ora in ambele cazuri).

Am fost la memorialul de la Sighet asta vara. De fapt nu am prevazut sa trec pe acolo, am decis in ziua dinainte si nici nu stiam la ce sa ma astept. Prin urmare nu am profitat la maxim. Am stat cateva ore in muzeu. Dar, nu am incarcat bateriile aparatului de fotografiat si dupa 20 de poze s-au terminat. In plus, trebuie sa mai si ai pricepere la facut poze - abia cand vezi ca iese una din 3 cum vroiai, iti dai seama ca nu e chiar elementar. In ultima vreme nu am avut timp de wikipedia, plus e si mult de lucru si nu stiu de ce sa ma apuc in primul rand. Daca vrei putem discut si prin email: te duci la pagina mea si in acel moment cauti in colonita din dreapta "E-mail this user". Referitor la Xasha, si mie mi se pare ca nu a venit cu ganduri bune pe WP - are idee fixa cu "moldovenii diferiti de romani" si o promoveaza. Nu stiu cine e, dar daca are parintii in sistem si a beneficiat ca e fiul lor si nu ca e el (banuiesc), il inteleg - loialitate pana la moarte. Acum trebuie sa plec, toate cele bune, Dc76\^talk 20:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy about Moldova

Please don't link your newly created article from other ones before it it brought into some shape first. Right now it's pure WP:AFD fodder.

Also please don't turn section headers into wikilinks - it's a Bad Thing. --Illythr (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misunderstand me - I am not addressing the POV of the article yet, only its encyclopaedic value, or rather, its current lack thereof. It also has absolutely nothing to do with Russians (Ukrainians etc) and their culture. As for opinions, mine is that ethnicity has always been a political thing.

That's clear ((Ernest Gellner, States & nations)

It helped unite the various Vlach tribes under a single idea, which IMO is a Good Thing.

Vlachs not formed tribes. East-Romance speaking peoples lived in medieval states, as Germanic- or Italic-speaking peoples. Germany, Italy, Romania as nations & states are constructions of the XIX century, and the modern form of German, Italian & Romanian languages, also.

But it didn't have the universal, massive, etc effect the nationalists claim

The nationalists (romanians, moldovans, russians or hungarians) have their POV. I'm not one of them. I'm not against the Moldovan identity. To be "against" it, is to be against a part of the reality.

...especially not in Bessarabia, which was excluded from the creation of the Romanian nation due to it being a rural uneducated Russian province at the time.

The Russian belong of Bassarabia, as the Austrian belong of Bucovina or the Hungarian belong of Transylvania, were not in incompatible with the romanian cultural developpement. The reality that you describe, are the same in Transylvania, Valachia and West-Moldavia (except the fact that this rural uneducated provinces were not soviet after 1945). If today Moldova is not Switzerland or Canada, where French, German, Italian & English cultural & linguistic identities are compatible with the Swiss or Canadian citizenship, if today Modova's authorithies support the local identity AGAINST the romanian identity (and ONLY against THIS identity), this is not an effect of the russian past of Moldova, but an effect of the soviet past. Vladimir Voronin himself said it: "We cannot delete the soviet past, it is an entire world for us".
- Again, a misunderstanding here: "Russian Bessarabia" not as in "populated by ethnic Russians" (which it wasn't until Soviet times), but as "part of the Russian Empire" - whose local authorities (correctly) saw the rise of a Romanian national idea among Bessarabian Moldovans as an irredentist threat and blocked its promotion. Once the Romanian state was established, this national idea could be propagated on a state level, ensuring that the population is indoctrinated within several generations. This did not happen in Bessarabia until 1919 (it only took hold among the educated elite), and had largely failed in 1920-1940, due to lack of an effective delivery system - mass education. --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan and Romanian are not different languages. My understanding of the position of the Moldovan government is that "their" language should be called Moldovan because it "came before Romanian", not because it's a different language. That is, Romanian, according to them is a western dialect of Moldovan, which is the "mother tongue" of the whole group, and not vice versa.

I'm against it, because it is NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC to accept a political diktat in Science. The name of the language today called "Romanian" & "Moldovan" (why not ?) is DACO-ROMAN for the linguists. The modern form of the Daco-Roman is the same one in Moldova and Romania. And the ancient forms of it, spoken in Transylvania, Valachia, the former Principality of Moldova (entire) & Dobruja, and written not in russian cyrillic, but in old greek-slavonic cyrillic, were called "Rumâniaska" by the own speakers : it means (in this times) not "Romanian" but "from Rome", and this Rome is not the first one (Rome in Italy) but the second one (Romania: our "Byzantine Empire"). Miron Costin, Grigore Ureche, Dimitri Cantemir wrote this, not me. So, the "Moldovan" is not coming before Romanian, but the former "Rumâniaska" (Abstand language) preceded the modern Daco-Roman called "Romanian" & "Moldovan" (Ausbau language). This is the historical reality, different of the nationalist POV from Romania or Moldova. I have not today the exact sources about this, because I have no more entrance in the libraries of the universities were I was student (Sorbonne-Paris I, Institut national des langues et des Civilisations orientales-Paris III), but I certify to you: this sources exists.
- The Old Church Slavonic alphabet was used, yes. It was also the predecessor of the Russian Cyrillic. I understand, there's a debate on how things were called several centuries in the past, and since it's not really my field of expertise, I prefer to avoid it. --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan citizens are not automatically ethnic Moldovans. According to the last census, there was something like 98% of the former and only 75% of the latter in Moldova. Citizenship is something that is enforced by the state (fact). Ethnicity, on the other hand, is a matter of cultural affiliation (my opinion).

The confusion between ethnicity & citizenship is also from the soviet model (who takes the german model of the "Blood right"). In the modern international right, ethnicity (a matter of cultural affiliation, yes) must be different from the citizenship, and you can be Moldovan by citizenship AND Russian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian by ethnicity, like you can be Swiss by citizenship AND German, French or Italian by ethicity.
- This was in response to "why the Moldovan citizens cannot be equally Moldovans" - if by the second "Moldovans" you meant "ethnic Moldovans", then they are, if they consider themselves to be such. --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the russian- and ukrainian-speaking Moldovans can use freely russian or ukrainian language and enjoy the russian or ukrainian culture and history, why the latin-speaking Moldovans cannot use freely romanian language and enjoy the romanian culture and history, if some of they want it ?

This I can't understand. Why can't they?

May be because it is forbidden by the Constitution ? This is a purely political thing...
- Where exactly does the Constitution of Moldova forbid people to freely use any language they desire or enjoy any kind of culture and history? AFAIK, it explicitly permits this as a basic right of all Moldovan citizens. Perhaps you're referring to the MSSR of the 1940s, where cultural influense that was identified as "hostile to the state" was indeed suppressed? --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan government doesn't welcome any movement whose goal is to turn it from a sovereign government into a provincial one. Illythr (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly it, but the political weapons used by the Moldovan govt are wrong, and wounded not the romanian nationalism, but Science, and cultural freedom. The right way is to claim strong the unalienable right of the peoples from Moldova to be an independent state, in a total Равенство/Egalitate, but without Soviet distortions of history and cultural areas.

Спасибо for your attention, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I suspect this is a problem of nationalism in Moldova - one of the major reasons to split off from the Soviet Union was the idea of a distinct national (Romanian) identity. Once it was used as leverage to break free, however, Moldova's leaders saw no point in ceasing to be the vassals of one state just to become vassals of another (which was also much worse off than Moldova at the time). But embracing the internationalist ideas the way breakaway Transnistrian authorities did - like granting the Russian, Gagauz and Ukrainian languages equal rights with Moldovan/Romanian - kinda defeated the whole point of leaving the USSR in the first place. So, as a justification for the country's existence, another national idea was adopted - the one of a distinct Moldovan identity. --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Da, by miss of democratic referencies, they take this old stalinist idea... in Transnistria also : the unique difference with the rest of Moldova is the using of the russian cyrillic alphabet for the Daco-Roman language. With democratic referencies, Moldova can justify its existence as a multinational state (as Switzerland), a country with Russians, Uhrainians, Romanians etc, all equally Moldovans. May be in another future, with patriotism but without nationalism (nether Romanian, nether Great-Russian, Nether Soviet ou Post-Soviet, nether Moldovan). It's a long way to it. It's as difficult as the "Human and democratic socialism" of Alexandr Dubcek, the last chance to save socialism...

Too bad...--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy articol

Îmi cer iertare pentru întârziere, eu doar astăzi am observat mesajul tău. Eu am citit forma prezentă a articolului şi într-adevăr, sunt necesare nişte schimbări majore, în special pentru a asigura neutralitatea textului şi pentru a garanta că informaţia inclusă în el să fie susţinută de surse credibile. Eu am să citesc articolul mai atent şi am să particip la pagina lui de discuţie. TSO1D (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldave

Cher Monsieur,

Mon avis est que, tenant compte des tensions politiques il sera impossible d'arriver à un consensus. Chaque fois que le problème linguistique est discuté, le problème de la nationalité des moldaves (si ils sont moldaves ou roumains) est aussi levée, meme si les deux problèmes sont pratiquement indépendents. Le problème est le meme pour les Autrichiens qui parlent l'allemand mais ne sont pas des Allemands. Tant que les tensions existent, on ne pourra pas pas arriver à un compromis.

Ce qui réprobable n'est malheureusement pas seulement l'attitude des autorités de la République de Moldova, mais aussi celle des autorités de Bucharest (et je ne parle pas seulement de quelques adolescents à tetes-chaudes, mais de l'attitude officielle). Pour vous faire comprendre le probleme, j'essayerai de faire abstraction du cas du moldave. Les autorités roumaines, éspecialement l'Académie Roumaine considère avoir un monopole sur la langue roumaine - ce qui est en pricipe inacceptable, parceque l'Académie est une organization qui a été établie par une loi de l'état roumain est donc ne peut pas avoir jurisdiction hors du territoire de l'état. Pour cette raison, en Roumanie, on a tendance à considérer le daco-roumain comme la seule forme admissible du roumain. Ceci est faux parce que cela implique que seulement les Roumains de Roumanie seraient de vrais roumains.

La réalité est qu'il y a des collectivités nombreuses roumaines dans différents pays, dont la Moldavie n'en est qu'un seul. Il y a des Roumains au Kazakhstan, en Serbie, aux Etat Unis, au Canada et en Australie. Ils y ont une vie à part et essayent de garder leur nationalité, sans pour autant accepter la domination de la Roumanie, comme "patrie mère". C'est le meme cas pour la communauté francophone du Canada, ou pour les communautés d'Amérique Latine, qui acceptent de discuter d'égal à égal avec la France, l'Espagne ou le Portugal sans pour autant accepter leur supériorité. On accepte que la langue parlée au Méxic n'est pas le Castillan, mais cela ne mène pas à de pareils conflits. Je suis d'origine roumaine, mais je suis américain et je vous concède que je me sens très dérangé par cette déclaration de propriété exclusive de la Roumanie sur la langue daco-roumaine.

A mon avis, ce qui se parle en Roumanie à présent n'est d'ailleurs meme plus le daco-roumain mais une langue abérante qui mériterait le nom de tzigano-saxon. Je ne parle pas de ce qui se parle dans les rues de Bucharest - cela fait un certain temps depuis que je n'y ai plus mis les pieds - mais de ce qui se parle à la télé ou ce que l'on écrit dans les journaux. Depuis quand, en daco-roumain, le mot "ora" (heure) est-il un mot masculin de sorte qu'il soit correct de dire, par éxemple "ora doisprezece"? Depuis quand en daco-roumain le mot "licence" (licenţă) a-t-il le sens de autorisation d'utilisation? Je respecte le droit de la population de Roumanie de parler comme elle l'entend, mais cela ne lui donne pas le droit d'imposer à d'autres population romanophones la meme modalite de parler, que des collectivités considèrent agrammate.

C'est pour cela que je considère la question linguistique comme fausse. Ce n'est qu'un artifice des autorités roumaine d'essayer d'imposer un monopole sur la langue roumaine auquel elles n'y ont aucun droit, sur les autre collectivités roumaines qui vivent à l'étranger, y compris mais pas seulement en Moldavie.

En ce qui concerne la langue moldave, je me permets de vous rappeller, que dans le théatre de Vasile Alecsandri, "Coana Chiriţa" expliquait "On dit cela en moldave".

En m'excusant sur cette longue digression,

Sincèrement Afil (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK with this opinion. Thank you for writing in french. Coana Chiriţa and the governments are not scientific referencies. For my opinion, scientists ans scholars must use the words: "East Romance languages", and in this category, "Daco-Roman (called Romanian and Moldovan)", "Aroman (called Aromanian, Vlach, Macedo-romanian a.o.)", "Megleno-Roman (called Megleno-Romanian)" and "Istro-Roman (called Istro-Romanian, Istrian or Cician)". But you're right, the consensus is not for today... And the actual "Romanian" is a pidgin. From my opinion, one root of this problems is the confusion between "ethnicity" (Droit du Sang in french: history, culture, language, music, faith...) and citizenship (Droit du Sol in french: the political belong). I'm a "mixed bastard" by origins (Aroman, Greek, Romanian and others) but I'm a Frenchman by citizenship and also by a large part of my past and my culture. Another root is the miss of knowledge. When we keep some knowledge, we have more doubts, more tolerance, more opened mind. Thank you Afil for cette longue digression, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multumesc frumos pentru mesajul tau din 31 mai. Imi pare rau ca incepand de prin mai n-am mai fost activ pe WP. Voi reveni in curand (1-2 saptamani) si iti/Va voi trimite un email la adresa indicata de tine/D-ra. Nu am urmarit ce s-a mai intamplat in ultemele luni, deci va trebui sa fac un efort. Cele mai bune urari, Dc76\^talk 18:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Moldovan humour

I have nominated Moldovan humour, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldovan humour. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. VG ☎ 09:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC) VG ☎ 09:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same article was conserved in the romanian (sorry : moldovan) and french Wikipedia. Conserved also, many of my other contributions about Moldova. With the same wikipedian rules and criteres. This is impossible on the English (sorry : American, Canadian, Australian, New-Zealandian, Scottish, Irish & British) Wikipedia. Why ? May be, because a web brigade don't like my work, where I don't exprime nether the romanian nationalist, nether (particulary) the russian post-soviet POV ? Oh no, no, this is no possible, isn't it ?!

The best joke from the Moldovan humour is : -Question: Is Moldova a more Russian, or a more Romanian country ? Answer: DA ! (Yes) --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:CARICMOLD.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:CARICMOLD.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. VG ☎ 00:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC) --VG ☎ 00:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Moldovan language merge

Based on the discussion in this article's talk page, I made a proposal [1] and gave its rationale [2]. 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 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :)--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:AtlHistMold2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AtlHistMold2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Spiridon MANOLIU. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Spiridon MANOLIU~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

19:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)