Hello, Rominator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Failosopher (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although you would have been correct to just delete that wild assertion at Brexit, as a new editor you were wise to raise it at the talk page first. It offended wp:LEAD and WP:CITE.

Outright contentious and disruptive material you can delete without further ado. Questionable material you can tag as "citation needed" using template:cn and (sparingly), template:dubious.

Thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia. Welcome again! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are not actually that new! But have the thanks anyway. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that, but couldn't at the time because the page is semi-protected. Rominator (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that this is not the first time you have a similar discussion. On Wikipedia we need reliable sources to add information. Sentences like the ones you are trying to add to the lead of European Commission are not "trivial" at all (and they are actually not true). Please do not insist by adding unsourced statements. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rominator. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cwmhiraeth, I do not have an external relationship with people or things in the articles I edited. In particular, I have no relationship to institutions of the European Union or national medical regulators of EU member states or to people working there (as the edits in question were related to European Commission–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine dispute). I certainly have no intention to advertise or promote these institutions. It is, however, obvious that the article in question is DailyMail-style anti-EU propaganda, full of half-truths, insinuations, and a complete lack of balance. Wikipedia is meant to be (somewhat) neutral, not simple bashing. Rominator (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who added the statement "Several countries inside and outside of Europe have since banned or restricted the use of AstraZeneca, including the UK, which admitted that many more cases occurred than previously made known and that some had died." to the article and referenced it to this, I don't think you are in any position to preach! And by the way, "slashed" is not a neutral word, quite DailyMail-style in fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now clarified the earlier version. I didn't think that it was problematic to say that "Several countries inside and outside of Europe have since banned or restricted the use of AstraZeneca" (the very paragraph itself already gives a number of examples), but I have now provided more sources and examples. May I suggest that we discuss any future queries directly on the talk page rather than on my user page. Rominator (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statements in the Reuters source dated 21 April, and used in the European Commission–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine dispute article, seem strange to me. Vaccines made inside the EU are made by companies such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca; they don't belong to the EU but to the companies concerned to distribute according to the contracts into which they enter. However the Reuters article states "EU has exported 37 mln more COVID-19 shots than its nations have received" as if the EU was being super-generous with the vaccines, when the disposal is in fact a result of commercial arrangements between the companies and their clients. The only EU involvement is the decision whether or not it should grant an export permit. Do you agree with this assessment? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't and this is for several reasons. First, the EU is the only country or bloc that allows (almost all) of exports requested even though they are under no obligation to do so and any export ban (during a medical emergency) is very well covered in international trade. For example, the US has an outright export ban (based on a wartime defense act), India is not exporting either (despite requests from AstraZeneca/the UK, the UK is just not exporting whatever the reasons are). However, I think your concerns can be addressed best if the legal basis under which the EU is enacting the export ban of AstraZeneca in relation to the UK (and the one instance where Australia was affected) is clarified further. I shall do this later today (this evening), and I suggest we can discuss any remaining issues then on the talk page of that article. (The other reason is that Biontech/Pfizer received a lot of German and EU govt funding to develop the vaccine and to build up capacity, and this would be the other reason why the EU is under no obligation to export this vaccine e.g. to the UK). Thank you. Rominator (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Recruitment into Employment discrimination law in the European Union. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I am the copyright holder of the text I posted on both pages [1]. I would of course never copy text of which I am not the copyright holder except as a quotation and properly attributed. I will still make sure next time that I indicate that I've posted a similar text elsewhere should that be the case. Rominator (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]