User talk:Anonimu/Complete Works/Tom 5 (2013)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tom 5 (2013)

Salutari...

Va scriu în româna deoarece nu sunt suficient de fluent în engleza, sorry. Dupa datele oficiale, nu toti cetatenii Moldovei sunt Moldoveni si nu toti cetatenii României sunt Români, conform definitiei etnice, bazata pe dreptul stramosesc sau jus sanguinis, care predomina în Europa Centrala si de Rasarit, inclusiv în tarile foste comuniste, si care, probabil stiti ca provine în principal din etnografia germana a sec. XIX.

Dar exista si alta definitie, nu etnica, ci istorico-geografica, bazata pe dreptul pamântean sau jus soli, conform careia sunt Moldoveni toti locuitorii vechiului Principat al Moldovei, fie ei rusi, evrei, români, romi, ceangai, si sunt Români toti locuitorii Romaniei, indiferent de origini, limbi si religii. Fie în treacat si în note, am socotit ca merita sa fie macar mentionata într-o enciclopedie.

Pe un plan mai personal, nu uitati ca fascismul si stalinismul s-au folosit de categoriile definite de etnografie pentru a persecuta, deplasa sau extermina în mod disciminativ anumite populatii...

Cu bine, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Fiecare este liber sa se considere ce doreste, auto-identificare fiind singurul criteriu obiectiv intr-o lume in care obiceiurile si chiar limba se pot schimba de la o generatie la generatie. In Republica Moldova cei care se considera "moldoveni" au fost inregistrati ca atare, in timp ce in Romania indicatiile de agregare a datelor impun ca cei care se declara "moldoveni" sa fie inregistrati nolens-volens drept "romani". Judecati dumneavoastra care sistem este mai apropiat de fascism sau stalinism... Wikipedia poate sa raporteze rezultatele recensamintelor din cele doua tari, dar nu are voie sa emita judecati de valoare proprie asupra acestor rezultate. Prin urmare a spune ca toti locuitorii regiunii Moldova de pe teritoriul Romaniei sunt "moldoveni" (in sensul etno-cultural, reliefat in limba engleza prin distinctia Moldovans vs Moldavians) inseamna a denatura de doua ori o realitatea. De asemenea, de jus soli nu poate fi cazul decat pentru teritoriul Republicii Moldova, din moment ce nu exista o entitate legal-administrativa moldoveneasca pe teritoriul Romaniei. Interpretarea lui pe baza unor limite istorice nu poate fi decat rezultatul unor asertiuni personale, neenciclopedice (tinand cont de faptul ca granitele statului moldovean istoric au fost destul de fluide, ce drept aveti dumneavoastra sa decideti momentul de referinta in care sa aplicati acest simulacru de jus soli? Conceptul insasi este impropriu unei perioade pre-constitutionaliste).Anonimu (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Multumesc de raspuns, eu ma refeream la sensul geografic al cuvântului "moldoveni" (deci, în engleza moldavians si nu moldovans, care înteleg ca inseamna numai cei in ex-CCCP). Mi se pare ca, în sensul geografic/moldavians, nu este necesara o entitate legala moldoveneasca pe teritoriul Romaniei, si nici macar sa fie toti asa-zisii etnici români (notiune fluctuanta devreme ce obiceiurile si limba se pot schimba de la o generatie la alta). Mai ales ca frontierele vechiului principat au variat într-adevar mult la nord, est si sud-est, dar nu la vest si sud-vest unde au fost statornice din sec XIV pâna la limitele judetene actuale. Imi pare rau ca nu exista jus soli nici in România, nici în R.M., devreme ce ambele state numesc respectiv Români si Moldoveni numai o parte din populatia lor, nu toti cetatenii indiferent de originile si limbile lor. Ceeace raspunde atât la întrebarea cu apropierea de fascism, cât si la evocarea notiunii de jus soli nu pentru Evul mediu evident, si nici în constitutia României, ci azi, în legatura cu auto-identificarea ca Moldoveni (în sensul geografic si nu etnic) a locuitorilor acestui teritoriu. Tinând cont de aceasta discutie, voi încerca sa exprim alfel ce adaugasem, sperând ca engleza mea sa fie corecta. --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexandru Ionescu (socialist militant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ştefan Gheorghiu (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) 11:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I added autopatrolled to your user rights, it's going to prevent your articles from showing up on the new curation tool. Clearly you know what you're doing, at least much more so than some patrollers.--v/r - TP 16:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Anonimu (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

trinity

macar lasa si tu loc de buna ziua. sau ai uitat de unde vii? pai bine mai boierule, atunci sunt eu bou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cei Trei (talkcontribs) 20:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this from Gigi too? Anonimu (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Nu de la Gigi, ci de la mine, din inima. Vad ca esti activ aici, dar nu vad sa dai si tu un semn de viata, sa intrebi daca mai sint in viata, te doare-n cot. Iar despre Stefan, gasisem o sarsa unde rusii se refera la fiica lui ca vlaha. deci uite, stia ce Stefan cine era, nici o problema! --Cei Trei (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I wish I were more active... I have material for more than a dozen articles, yet no time to write them. As for your life, as long as you don't return to WP through the front door, it's not of much interest to me. Re Stefan: that proves nothing, "Vlach" referred to any Romance-speaking guy in Eastern Europe. Didn't the Poles call Moldavia "Valachia" (or it was just Dlugosz?)? So that proves nothing about what Stefan may have thought about himself (but surely he wasn't thinking in the terms of the modern concept of ethnicity).Anonimu (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
lolz, told you the system would assimilate you. --Cei Trei (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, how's your love life? Anonimu (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It's better now, thanks for asking. I miss those disses that raised you to prominence our little forum. I don't think this cold shoulder attitude suits you well, even if you work in a business that is very stoic (IT, programming, etc.). It's a shame that you lost your touch (the reference to Stephen in the forum was a miss), but maybe you'll find your way again. Just watch out for the midlife crisis, it can be nasty stuff. You still got a few years until you reach your 30s. Just make sure you have a wife, kids, house, and car. :) --Cei Trei (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
That forum, with all the trolling going on, was fun while it still allowed relevant information to be exchanged (at a time when info about Romania was scarce on the WP and even on the web). Once its activity reduced to nationalist bickering based exclusively on stereotypes (a somewhat natural evolution considering that the youth was already losing interest in higher culture and history, and the older members were moving ahead with their lives) the only sane decision one could take was to leave it. That period coincided with a significant growth of WP, enabling people to share information more efficiently, while at the same time becoming an attraction for nationalist POV-pushers. Way more interesting than an imploding forum. And yes, with the changed corporate environment came a change in attitude (which wasn't that easy, just check my block log - I'm proud of it!). I'm not really sure how you got the idea that you know anything about me... should I remind you that I am the one who knows where the other one lives? ;) (although, compared with what I've heard from other guys on WP about my RL identity, you're clearly better informed) Anonimu (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Mai lasa bricheta, mai! :D --Cei Trei (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

lmFao, Becali just said "muie Steaua" live on Fanatik Show when explaining why he wants to Dinamo and Rapid to be put to shame by Steaua. Ahahahaha! --Cei Trei (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Mai bricheta", your edit on Moldovans is stupid because if you would agree with such edit you have to write to all articles as well in "Moldovan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandstunk (talkcontribs) 19:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Rapid relegated, but don't despair, Botosani will be playing in Liga 1 next season! Incet, incet, ne facem loc. --Cei Trei (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In capitalism money is more important than merit...Anonimu (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not capitalism that promoted Botosani. Copos tried to play the capitalistic game and failed. He invested tens of millions of euro. Botosani played it smart and hopefully we'll remain in Liga 1. It would be the only northern Moldavian team in Liga 1. It will be good for us, for the county, for the kids. Maybe you could support us, instead. I remember you saying you visited Botosani and I don't remember you saying you didn't like it. You thought it was clean. Cheers! --Cei Trei (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Rapid is not Copos... actually Rapid is kind like a Phoenix, it's not the first time it's relegated. Rapid is a team that has risen from the working class, unlike the many others created through some bureaucratic decision, thus it has my full support, even in the second league. Anyway, you can't just change the team you support like that (unless you happen to be one of the recent Steaua fans ;) ).Anonimu (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socialist Republic of Romania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tito (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) 22:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

New article on Michael's overthrow

Hey there ... I found out there was enough on Michael's forced abdication that it merited a separate article. Check it out and add anything that I missed at 1947 Romanian coup d'etat--and yes, it can be described as a coup given that troops had his palace surrounded and he was threatened at gunpoint. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 22:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bukovina, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Romanian and Gypsies (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) 08:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Limba moldovenească

Bună, am observat că ai revenit la o modificare anterioară în articolul despre Limba moldovenească: înțeleg că ai vrut să modifici denonimul populației și totuși ai schimbat și secțiunea privind limbile oficiale. Cred că a fost greșeală, în cazul acesta, te rog să fi mai atent când revii la o versiune anterioară pentru a nu face munca altor Wikipediști în van; dacă nu a fost, te rog să nu trunchiezi descrierea editării în speranța că oamenii nu vor vedea conținutul modificării. O zi bună. --Danutz (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)