User talk:Adys16

Welcome!

Hello, Adys16, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Princess Maria of Romania. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Queen anne.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Queen anne.jpeg, 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. - Andrei (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Queen anne.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:Queen anne.jpeg 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. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Maria.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Maria.jpeg. 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected].

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. January (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Princess Sophie of Romania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atena. 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) 09:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adys16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What it's the reason I have been blocked? I did't violate any copyrights and also the content is verifiable! I have no conection with use Qais16! Please reconsider

Accept reason:

Per below. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKiernan:- is the evidence in this case the similar username and similar editing interest? In which case do you think it could be a false positive? I've run a checkuser, and as far as I can tell, the accounts are Unrelated. PhilKnight (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Nicolae.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nicolae.jpeg, 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. Peripitus (Talk) 10:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please do not mark the insertion of content, particularly content about living people, as "minor". In accordance with Help:Minor edit, minor edits are typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification or introduction of information. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ignore comments from other editors. Tagging edits as minor when they are not, as you did here, is disruptive. Do not tag the insertion of material on a biography of a living person as minor. DrKiernan (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so why did you deleted the changes i made on Prince Nicholas page? --Adys16 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you do not write edit summaries, so perhaps you missed mine: royals are inevitably cousins of other royals. DrKiernan (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Edit summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history and can be used to provide brief descriptions or explanations of the edit. They are visible in:

Oh I see, thank you, I'll take care next time.Adys16 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Hrhmarie.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Hrhmarie.jpeg. 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected].

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. Peripitus (Talk) 21:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism, as you did in the edit summary to this edit, unless you have good reasons to believe they have been acting in bad faith. An edit made in good faith is not vandalism, even if you personally disagree with it.
As you will know if you checked recent edit summaries to the article, the change was made as a result of discussion on the article's talk page. In that discussion, not a single person dissented from the view that the page should be redirected. If you disagree, you are, of course, welcome to give your reasons, but it is unacceptable for an editor to ignore consensus and unilaterally revert a change which is the result of consensus in a discussion.
Despite the fact that you have reverted away from the redirect several times, on none of those occasions have you made any attempt to explain why you disagree with the reasons given for making the redirect. Doing so would be more constructive than throwing out unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism, as you have done twice, against two different editors who have shown agreement with the reasons for redirecting, which were explained.
You say "I saw I'm not the only one who think so". That may be so, since one of the four reverts that I have seen away from the redirect was by an anonymous editor who may or may not be you. However, even if that was not you, to say "I saw I'm not the only one who think so. Please consider that" makes little sense, since that makes two editors who have removed the redirect, while three have made the redirect. Please consider that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What good faith may exist in deleting a page which, as far as I know, respect all wikipedia copyrights and rules? There is no reason to do that. Princess Sophie is a public person and considering that you're not redirecting all articles about kings or queens relatives(in this case daughter of His Majesty king Michael) I see no reason and certainly is'nt made in good faith....--Adys16 (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:consensus of Wikipedia contributors, as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria of Romania, is that these articles are not notable, and that these articles should be redirects pointing to Michael I of Romania. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 9 August 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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Adys16. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Adys16. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian royalty

Paul and his family are Romanian royalty, but they are not members of the House of Romania. Just like the Hanoverians and Stuarts were British royalty but were not members of the House of Windsor. The fundamental rules apply to the House of Romania. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No,they are not members of the Romanian royalty. This Paul Lambrino was not recognised by any member of the Romananian Royal Family, either by his father or by HM King Michael Ist. So for this reason he should not be in the line with the legal royals. Furthermore, the word 'disputed' should be removed considering the Fundamental Rules I've mentioned before..

The Fundamental Rules have no legal force. It is a private family document. Reliable sources say they are Romanian royals. Wikipedia does not select one reliable source over another or take sides in disputes. DrKay (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Adys16. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Adys16. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]