User talk:NorbertArthur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

Romanian Diaspora

[edit] Romanians

Norbert, ce spui este adeverat. Trebe sa asteptam cand nu o sa fie Jmabel si prostu ola jayjig pe faza. Nu mai bine (BaNaTeaN 01:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

salut Norbert. asa cum ai spus este bine. sa negociem cu ei. (BaNaTeaN 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Norbert cred ca o sa vorbesc cu un admin, ca vagabondsi au vandalisad pagina Australian-romanian. Tu ce zice sa facem? (BaNaTeaN 02:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

cred ca ar fi bine sa facem o pagina despre romanian-brazilian, romanian-mexican, si romanian-french. nu mai bine norbert (BaNaTeaN 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

am avut e-mail dar am uitat password. o sa ma uite pentru 1 million de romanii in america. am gasit multe despre america. Nu mai bine o sa ti le dau cand gasesc source bune. (BaNaTeaN 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Salut Arthur, Christos A-inviat!, sarbatorii fericite. (BaNaTeaN 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

I'm not sure if you can read this, you don't specify if you know English, but you see I can speak, read, and a little bit write in Romanian. I wanted to leave a message about the Romanians page on another user's page, and read what you wrote about that administrator and the vandalism. I think it's horrible. Reach me @ Basketball110 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC) La multi ani!

[edit] Romania's economy

Arthur, the economic data that is currently up cannot possibly be true. Romania's GDP per capita in 2005 was $8300 and it could not have gone up to 11600 (an increase of 42%!) within four months. I have tried talking to the other users but the anonymous ones don't even think that it is necessary to cite sources or explain their changes. The current values do not make any sense and in my view the data from the IMF or CIA should be used in its place. I could not find any sources for values above $10000 for the current GDP per capita of Romania, if you have such information could you please show me the source. TSO1D 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernie Grunfeld

Hi, just FYI, I removed most of your text from Ernie Grunfeld as it was a {{copyvio}}

[edit] Andrei Codrescu

Hi. I don't understand your edit to Andrei Codrescu with the comment "Codrescu was not Jewish !". While not religious, he has made many references to his his Jewish ancestry and has described himself that way. Also, the "was" seems a curious use of the past tense for a living subject. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I posted my reply at Talk:Andrei Codrescu and suggest moving the discussion there in case anyone else is interested in the topic. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 04:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sergiu.gorun.750pix.jpg listed for deletion

Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines for Wikipedia lists of ethnic groups

Please may I draw your attention to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups

Your contributions would be very welcome. -- Brownlee 12:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Apropos, pune din nou sursele cu privire la numărul românilor.

Nu trebuie să ai încredere în Alexandru..cum îl mai cheamă. Lasă că suntem destui români treji la cap. --Iasi 06:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other's comments

User:Romanian removed other people's comments on you talk. I reverted him. If you wish to keep his changes then feel free but I'm just doing my job. ;). --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Flagrom-australian.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Flagrom-australian.750pix.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanians

Hi. It looks like most if not all of the numbers are cited, including Italy. Besides, I was reverting a sockpuppet of the banned User:Bonaparte, who is infamous for his POV-pushing in the name of a Greater Romania. Please tell me specifically what is wrong about the current version of the page. --Khoikhoi 01:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Can you translate for me, please, what you were writing on Alexander 007's page? I notice it was removed but you kept restoring it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust him to give an accurate translation. Basically, what he was doing was acting as if I did not acknowledge that I insulted him, when in fact I did acknowledge this on User talk:Gutza#Salut. Despite this, he was writing frankly inane posts where he threatens to have me blocked and taunts me & harasses. I may translate them later, but they are a waste of time. Alexander 007 03:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

One of them was already translated by the anonymous French-writing IP. Nothing much. Alexander 007 03:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what he expects me to do. I admitted I insulted him; so if he wants to get me blocked, well he can go ahead and lobby for it. And that's what he's been doing, at WP:AN/I and other places. So far, all he gets is crickets. He was not calmly asking for an apology, he was aggravating things with harassing posts, where I in fact had to restrain myself from letting loose with real personal attacks. He definitely does not know how to resolve a dispute, if that's what he wants. I removed his posts, not, as he delusionally believes, because they "expose" anything, but because they are pointless. If he wants to get me blocked, he should go try. If he wants an apology, he should ask me in a normal manner. Otherwise he shouldn't post, because I don't care what else he has to say and I don't need to be online responding to any comment he comes up with, nor do I want his rude/inane statements on my talk page, full of slangy, badly written Romanian. Alexander 007 03:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It began as a polite request from me on User talk:Romania. It continued on my talk page here. Whoever is interested in this debacle feel free to begin their search from there, then checking other pages involved. I summarized what happened here:User talk:Gutza#Salut. I made mistakes, so did he. However, the insult from me was sparked off by a blatant (and later admitted) lie from Norbert. Yes, I should not have made a personal attack in any case. It happens. Feel free to pursue the case. Have fun. Alexander 007 04:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok mai, fii atent aici. Termin cu procesele de blocare daca incetezi sa iti bagi nasu' in tot ce fac, ai inteles? Tu acuma incerci sa faci pe innocentul, stergandu-mi tot ce am cerut explicatii si ori si care admin am scris ti-ai bagat. Bah sa stii ca yo nu iti accept asta, da? Daca iti crei scuze pt aceste atacuri personale, totul va fii ok. A da, si auzi, tu nici macar nu esti in stare sa scrii in romana, asa ca fa misto de cum scriu eu, da?

NorbertArthur 15 April 2006

Salut Norbert! As vrea sa facem cunostinta, imi pare bine sa te cunosc. Am vrut sa te ajut si uite ce a iesit. Sa te uiti la editarile mele. Am citit mai sus. Cine nu e in stare sa scrie in romana mai e oare roman adevarat? --Chisinau 14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ti-am scris ceva si pe pagina mea. Sa citesti si sa ma ajuti. Eu am sursele si in curand o sa le pun pe pagina. --Chisinau 15:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Uite ce face khoikhoi ala si vezi poate ii poti spune cateva. scoate aia de pe pagina mea ca daca o mai scot eu ma blocheaza pentru ca am scos-o de 3 ori. --Chisinau 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mai de unde o luati mai ca numerele astea nu sunt adevarate? Du-te pe pagina lui chisinau - unde ai sa vezi raspunsul meu. NorbertArthur tu stii mai bine ca doar traiesti aici, in Canada nu sunt nici 1/2 de milion de romani. Daca sunt 200.000. Tu te uiti la montreal unde vezi in jur de 10.000 - 20.000 de romani si aplici asta la toata canada? Pai toata lumea stie ca romanii sunt cei mai multi aici in montreal si in toronto si ca toti emigrantii suntem mai multi in orasele mari. Constantzeanu 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Eu am gasit in manual. Uite ce face irpen si cu coicoiul ala. Chisinau 20:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

NorbertArthur, I don't think we ever met but in case you are not aware, please read this and this. --Irpen 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What is there? I haven't seen the connection. --Chisinau 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ca sa clarific: sunt total importriva numarului de 36 de milioane.

Vorbind specific de Canada: si eu personal am citit in Ziarul Gazeta de Montreal ca in 2000 erau 6600 de romani. Sa stii ca daca am fi 30.000 de romani in montreal ar insemna ca am fi exact 2% din populatia orasului ori asta este imposibil: ca sa-ti arat ca este imposibil vreau sa consideri ca in MTL, 53% sunt francezii iar ce mai mare minoritate sunt englezii cu 18%. vrei sa-mi zici ca noi suntem de 9 ori mai putini ca englezii? Pe deasupra dintre emigranti (cam 500.000 pe insula montreal) considra populatia de asiatici (chinezii numai sunt cam 100.000), arabi (cam 70.000), evrei (50.000), italieni (cel putin 100.000), spanioli, portugezi, greci, armeni - toate aceste minoritati sunt cu mult mai mari decat cea romana.

Italienii au "mica italie in nordul montrealului", evreii au un oras intreg in "cote st. luc", portugezii la fel. Pana si rusii si ucrainienii au fel de fel de restaurante prin montreal - cu clientele de obicei din comunitatea lor. Noi avem doar un magazin "Bucarest" care si ala e plin de vanzatori basarabeni pentru ca acolo tot rusii vin sa cumpere. Constantzeanu 22:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As a courtesy to all Wikipedians, dear Romanian users, please switch back to English. Nothing prevents you from using the Romanian language in private communications if you really must. --Irpen 00:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am really glad that you have been watching us so closely Irpen; are you fascinated with us that much?

But because you have asked so nicely and politely I will say this in English (just for you Irpen) :)))

NorbertArthur, about your arguments, I agree that the number of churches does suggest a large number of Romanians. I didn't say it is 6.600 now. I only said that this is the number reported in 2000. Perhaps it has grown significantly since then to perhaps 10.000-15.000 (It can't have been growing much more then that considering that Romania is undergoing an economic growth right now). If you think about it, how many churches does a town of 10.000 people have?

About the 4 Romanian schools, I am really surprised to find that. You mean that there are 4 Romanian schools in Montreal? Please point them out to me! I never heard of them but if they exist, I would really like to visit them. When I came to this city From Ontario in 1999, there were no Romanian schools, otherwise my parents would have send me to one for sure.

Lastly, I really don't think that we should have any reason to "not trust" the Canadian census. This is Canada :) We are not leaving in Ukraine or something. Nobody is going to downplay our minority's size in this country ;))) Constantzeanu 05:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airline logos

Hi, I had to replace these with links as copyrighted images aren't permitted to be used on userpages. Regards Arniep 22:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Romanian-australian.750pix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Romanian-australian.750pix.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Ro-Ampop.750px.jpg

--cjllw | TALK 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, that image appears to be tagged incorrectly as a Public Domain work of the US Govt. However, that diagram comes from the Embassy of Romania site, and is part of a presentation compiled by some folks from Georgetown Uni - neither of these are agencies of the US govt.--cjllw | TALK 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(in response to your message at my talk page) Stupid or not, unfortunately copyright is a fact of life, and there are numerous good reasons why wikipedia takes correct licensing use seriously- it is wikipedia policy, as a matter of fact. If you haven't done so already, please review this information on wikipedia and copyrights.

Note that copyright issues also prevent the wholesale reproduction of large tracts of text, without the proper attribution, such as I have removed at Romanian-American. I'm afraid (generally speaking) you really can't simply copy a bunch of text and base an article around it. You could of course use the facts from that source, but you need (no great effort, surely) to reword it, and/or present as (brief) quotes, properly attributed. For the information which was on that article, the better course of action if you want to include that data is to write it in your own words, and give the reference to the source.--cjllw | TALK 03:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian-American

(again in reply to your post on my talk page)Norbert, firstly don't remove cited census data, and secondly please try not to disrupt the flow of the inline citations. If you are unsure how these work, review WP:FN.

The "truth" is that a variety of estimates can be found in a variety of sources, but portraying any one of these as the actual and only figure is misleading. A comment made by the editor of a small-circulation newspaper is not in and of itself conclusive. Nevertheless, I have again rewritten that section including those two sources, but making explicit mention of their nature as estimates. This, I trust, will suffice.

Curiously, you seem to be well prepared to challenge high estimates made for populations of other ethnic/national groups, demand sources and to insist upon the primacy of census data- such as at Armenian-American. I don't see why the same rigour should not be applied in this case.--cjllw | TALK 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(in response to your subsequent reply)Hang on there, NorbertArthur- some of the above appears to be a result of confusion of grammar, and other parts a confusion of sources:

• re LA and Chicago, my sentence actually reads: "…an estimate of 120,000 in the greater Los Angeles area, while the Romanian museum in Chicago mentions an estimate of 100,000 in that city" (emphasis added). In this sentence, "that city" is meant to refer to Chicago, not LA. I suppose it is grammatically ambiguous, and can easily be amended.
• The 56,000 figure for CA. and the others mentioned there comes from the 2000 US Census, not Ro-Am.net. Those figures are factual (i.e., it is a fact that those are what the census records), and census data is always quotable, whether you believe those figures or not. I do not state, "there are 56,000 Ro-Ams in California"; instead I say something like "US census figures recorded 56,000 Ro-Ams in California"— can you see the difference? The sentence does not claim to know what the true figure is, but factually reports what other sources have said.
• Mentioning that the 1.2M Ro-Am Network estimate for the US includes some other ethnic groups as well is correct- take another look at the source where they explicitly say that other groups are included in this number. Quoting directly from them: "Therefore, other immigrants of Romanian national minority groups have been inlcuded [sic] such as: Armenians, Germans, Gypsies, Hungarians, Jews, and Ukrainians."
• The 'other annoying thing' I write is actually this: "…and second- and third-generation descendents, some of whom have not or do not primarily identify with a Romanian heritage (emphasis added). This again is correct- it is clear that not all of the 2nd & 3rd generation descendants estimated by the RoAm source identify primarily as Romanian (else they'd indicate it on their census forms). The statement is also supported by the RoAm source, which says: "…including not just the first generation immigrants that came from Romania and declared their ethnic origin as Romanian." The RoAm study has guessed at the numbers of these descendants and included them, without regard as to whether or not they think of themselves as Romanian- presumably some do, some do not, we simply don't have the information. But I am not removing them from the 1.2M total, just noting explicitly what that number is supposed to be comprised of (the RoAm study does not say how many 2nd/3rd gen. descendants they allowed for, or how they estimated the figure for these).

Re the Armenians, if you have the sources then go ahead and mention them- but I'd suggest you ensure firstly that the sources are halfway reliable, and to use expressions like "according to