Welcome! You are currently at the archive of my talk page for the year 2021. In case you want to leave me a message, click here, and don't forget to sign up adding ~~~~.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Ava Max, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per MOS:BLPLEAD, ethnicity does not go in the lede sentence.Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the notice, although I'd rather have a "personalised" comment instead of an automatic warning. SuperΨDro 23:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question about whether the Moldovan language should be referred to as such or not is part of a political discussion I never wished to be a part of, at least not on Wikipedia. However, as neither the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic nor the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic ever used the term “Romanian”, it should not be used in the articles. We already discussed this on the talk page about Transnistria. We have consensus. I have no objections to you believing that the term Moldovan should not be used, nor do I object to it not being used in the article about Moldova, but I ask you again to not make your edits of this and the article about the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic into a political discussion. These states, except for Transnistria, do not exist anymore and we all have to adapt to the historic facts. I have no desire to turn this into a conflict based on your current edit warring against consensus and therefore ask you to stop now. We can discuss this matter here if you want to. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Åttiotrean 226, we have never reached any consensus. As I already said in a summary, I left the page of Transnistria as it is now because I knew that in such a relevant and viewed page it would be difficult to push controversial changes such as changing "Moldovan" to Romanian. And don't make so many allusions to the consensus because you haven't done too much to respect it. I'm sure you've seen this IP removing the note that stated that the Romanian language in Transnistria is termed as Moldovan, but you did nothing to put it back. We cannot use a "consensus" when it favors us and ignore it when not.
Now, I agree that the dispute between the Moldovan and Romanian languages should not be covered in extension in other pages, but this does not mean that it has to be ignored completely. In the last reverts I've made to you, I have kept the term "Moldovan" several times, but you keep advocating to remove mentions to the Romanian language completely, so it is obvious that I am not going to accept this. I don't care what the Soviet or Transnistrian authorities have said, the Moldovan language does not exist, it is the same as Romanian and there is no self-respecting linguist or scholar who says otherwise. I have already proposed it before through my edits and I am going to do it again: I'd like there to be no mentions of Moldovan being a separate and independent language (that is, to use the term "Moldovan" but not "Moldovan language") and I want that when "Moldovan" is first mentioned in the lead and the main text, to be categorized somewhere as Romanian. If this is possible, you can keep "Moldovan" in templates and in all the other mentions of the "language". It is possible that I put it in a strange way here, but it is basically what I have proposed in this edit, which I believe that is not too radical. I am also open to listen to your proposals if they are reasonable and compromising and if you do not continue with that Romanian has to be removed from everywhere. Let's reach an actual consensus this time. SuperΨDro 15:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start by saying this: I have no objections to you wanting to discuss the matter. The only thing I object to is your edit war towards consensus, which, of course, is not acceptable nor a good way to come to an understanding, so I am quite relieved to see that you have decided to finish this discussion before proceeding with any new edits.
Moving on to the matter itself: I have no issues with the term “Romanian”, as this is the common name of the language, at least outside Transnistria and possibly also Moldova. The problem here is that Moldovan is still one of two names for this language and therefore is as legitimate as the other. This is not a discussion about lingustics. No one participating in our discussion, at least not me, have ever stated that Moldovan and Romanian are different, distinct languages. This is just a question about using different names, indeed for political reasons, but also historic. In Transnistria, only the term Moldovan is used. In both the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, only the term Moldovan, or rather Moldavian, were used. This is a fact! As Moldovan, as I said, is a legitimate different name for the Romanian language, there is no reason to call it Romanian in these articles when even their government never called them that. The term Romanian are and were never used there, at least not officially. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on to your suggestions: I can see that your only wish is to not having Moldovan appear as a distinct language. Based on the arguments I presented above, I see no problems with this when they are used as official terms. It is not a distinct language, but it is a distinct and legitimate second name for Romanian, at least in this context. I can understand your objection when it comes to using the term in other places on Wikipedia, but this is about current and historic political facts. With all due respect, I think that your arguments would do well to go in the article about the Moldovan language itself. I fear the articles about the states who used them is the wrong place to start. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, we can get rid of longer statements like “in the Moldovan language (...)”, but as long as we only write “Moldovan” in the text, I see no problems with it being used. It seems we agree on this. We can also use notes explaining that the language is the same as Romanian. There is no reason for a further discussion about Moldovan in these articles anyway. I have no desire to be difficult (which is why I, unlike you, prefer to refrain from using expressions like “I will not accept this”). I am prepared to compromise as long as historical facts remain correct. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on the most important things, which is good. I want to discuss something: "Moldovan is still one of two names for this language and therefore is as legitimate as the other". This is theoretically true and, from what I see, it is the position you defend. The point is that in almost every case in which the term "Moldovan" is used, it is in a context that implies that it is different from Romanian or an unique language. Also, "Romanian" is the language that has always been used (by speakers) before the appearance of the term "Moldovan"/"Moldavian". This is why I prefer to use "Romanian", even if you defend (or don't question) that both languages are the same.
About the second message, you may be right that it is not appropriate to use it in the articles about the states itself. A note like the one we agreed on putting in the Transnistria article could work on the infobox. In the lead and body of the article however, I prefer a clear relationship between the Romanian and Moldovan languages. This can be done in several ways, such as: Romanian (termed as "Moldovan" in X state), Moldovan (a variant of the Romanian language), Moldovan (another name for the Romanian language [although I don't support this one too much]), etc. You can also propose a version you can agree with.
Regarding the third message, I agree with what you say as long as we establish a relationship between Romanian and Moldovan in the first mention (the first is enough) of Moldovan in the article. I think it is easier to propose solutions with an example in mind. We can try to resolve the conflict in Emblem of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. There are two controversial parts, the first is "in both the Russian and Moldovan languages". First of all, I think that "Moldovan", "Romanian" or whatever we agree to put in should come before Russian as the article is about the Moldovan SSR, not Transnistria, and Russian was never the main language there. Then we have to look for a substitution for "Moldovan" in the sentence, which can be one of my proposals from above or something similar or it can be one of your proposals. The same problem occurs in the second conflicting part of the article, "In 1957 the spelling of the Romanian language in Moldova was changed", which I don't really know why did you keep "Romanian" there. SuperΨDro 19:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, from what I see, you've edited stuff related to Transnistria on other Wikipedias. It is not my responsibility and it does not concern me too much what other Wikipedias say, and I haven't taken a look at your contributions on other Wikipedias in depth, but if there is any edit that you've made that may be controversial, I ask you to please change the text to what we agree on after establishing consensus. SuperΨDro 19:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that some claim this, but from was I can see, it is never claimed in “our” articles. The only difference I can think of is the Transnistrian use of the Cyrillic alphabet, some colloquial differences mainly consisting of Russian slang and some sound differences in the Moldavian dialect. If this is enough to classify it as a unique language is up to our linguists. I am really only interested in their views. If they claim that Moldovan is not a unique language, I have no desire nor intention to push for something else.
i think this is an excellent solution. My proposal would then be the second, where we write Moldovan in the articles and put in notes that let readers know that it is a variety of the Romanian language using the Cyrillic alphabet. I think this is the most neutral way of approaching this matter. Moldovan is the term used, but it absolutely deserves clear notes, just like the ones we used in the article about Transnistria. At the same time, we remain true to the facts both regarding the situation in Transnistria and the historical one in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Whether Russian was the main language in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic or not is not my area of expertise. I will leave that matter for now. I think Russian should go first in the article about the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, but have no intention to push for anything in the other one.
I am unsure about why you bring up my edits on other versions of Wikipedia. Do you mean that you want me to do the same thing to articles in the other languages after we are finished with “our” articles? For the record: I have no desire to spread “controversial” views and do not know why you would suggest that I have. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the first message, you may want to read some articles. This one [1] or this one [2] (specially page 2). Maybe this one too [3] but it is in Romanian. Personally, I can perfectly understand 99% of what a Moldovan speaks and any Romanian will tell you the same. The only thing that is somewhat different is the accent, which makes them somewhat difficult to understand for me (or us). Furthermore, Romanian and Moldovan are so similar that the Moldavian dialect of Romanian (at the west of the Prut) is not considered different from that of the Republic of Moldova (east of the Prut). You can read about this in Moldavian dialect.
Moving on to the next message, I have edited Emblem of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic [4] as we both seem to agree with the proposed solution. I have placed Moldovan before Russian as Moldovan was much more spoken than the other. Do you agree with these changes?
And about the last message, I say that if you have made an edition similar to those for which we have edit warred in other Wikipedias, that you change them to the proposals here. I don't know if I'm making myself understood. SuperΨDro 14:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have reached a conclusion we are both happy with. Thank you for the links – and мулцумеск пентру ачастэ конверсацие! Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. This is what we agreed on. If you have the time, you may make use of the same notes in the article about the emblem used in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. I seem to fail when I try. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave it as it is. Notes are a solution, but it is best to keep the article simple. Remember that we also agreed on specifying that Moldovan is a variant of Romanian when it was first mentioned in the text of the article. SuperΨDro 13:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is no conflict here. A note is nicer and looks than parentheses in a text. I will add a note once I figure out how to do it properly. I would also like to add that we should write that Moldovan is a variant of Romanian in all of these articles. I will tend to this as soon as I get the chance. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a note looks better, but okay. To add a note, use "{{efn|}}" and put the text you want there. Then make a new section for notes on the article (if there isn't any already) and add {{notelist}} on it. By the way... are you going to apply these changes to non-historical articles such as Moldova or just to historical ones? SuperΨDro 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Well, I am not as sure about Moldova. Stating that Moldovan is another name for the language would be neutral enough, I think, but I am less familiar with the situation there. In Transnistria, only the term Moldovan (or rather Moldavian, actually, among most people) and the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet are acceptable, while Moldova uses the Latin alphabet these days. What is the common name of the language there? I find that most Moldovans I know call it Moldovan, but there could be important geographical differences that you know more about than I. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of the people in Moldova identify their language as "Moldovan", but this has a bit of a catch, as 18% of the population is not ethnic Romanian/"Moldovan" and these minorities are often strongly anti-Romanian, especially Russians and Gagauzes. If we only take into account the opinion of ethnic Romanians, it could reach a majority or be very close to it (above 40% for sure). In case you want some actual data, this poll shows that 34% of Moldovans (regardless of ethnicity) want the Romanian language to be used in the constitution; the exact same number of those Moldovans that wanted unification with Moldova some months earlier [5]. In addition to this, "Romanian" is the language used in the Moldovan Declaration of Independence, which is more important than the current constitution ([6], this article is also linked in the Moldovan language article). You can also take a look at the official page of the Moldovan President ([7]), which shows Romanian (not Moldovan) as one of the three languages in which it is available. I also remember reading that "Romanian" is used instead of "Moldovan" in many schools and that many teachers, parents and students opposed a proposal from a pro-Russian president to make the term "Moldovan" nationwade, but I can't find a link for this right now. For all these reasons, just as the term "Moldovan" predominates in Transnistria-related articles, the term "Romanian" should predominate in Moldova-related articles. You can change articles related to the Moldavian SSR, but not articles from after and also before. And, in case you're wondering, probably even more Moldovans than now identified their language as Romanian (including during the Romanian rule, the 1918 republic and the Russian rule) before Bessarabia was annexed by the USSR, so the term "Moldovan" should be restricted to historical articles of the Soviet era. SuperΨDro 18:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into the matter and given it some thought. I understand your view, but I think that, in the case of Moldova and the language spoken there, we should be more flexible. As you say, majority of Moldovans still identify their national language as Moldovan, which I feel calls for a compromise. This does not mean we should skip the name of Romanian entirely, but rather handle the matter so that both those who call it Moldovan and those who call it Romanian may feel their views are being addressed. I feel that, with clarity, this can be done so that no one is given the impression that the still very small distinctness of the Moldovan language is exaggerated. I feel its distinctness in comparable to the one of the languages of the former Yugoslavia. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that regarding Transnistria, your main argument was that the language there is officially termed "Moldovan". In the case of Moldova, it is technically officially termed "Romanian". I can accept the use of "Moldovan" in some articles, but only in the face of a clear dominance of the term "Romanian" in them just as "Moldovan" predominates in Transnistria-related articles. Could you give an example of an article about Moldova that you think might need some change? Right now I feel like we are talking about nothing specific. SuperΨDro 12:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no specific example at the moment. I will get back to you as soon as I find one. I agree about Transnistria, by the way. Transnistria has a different situation than Moldova. There, only Moldovan and Moldovan Cyrillic work. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are off the issue, but after readin it through (a rare case I dint skip a wall of text:-) I cannot help but highly recommend to read Haddocks' Eyes to learn what happens if a term is called another term. CheersLembit Staan (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. After re-reading some of the comments above, I admit they do be a bit like that. I hope these argues amused you for a while. SuperΨDro 08:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. SuperΨDro 11:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for Union of Bulgaria and Romania, "about a proposed union between Bulgaria and Romania. There were several proposals to achieve this union but they were never applied in the end. When I found that such proposals existed, I found them very interesting and simply felt like working on an article about this proposed union."! --
You have no consensus for the move. The overwhelming majority of sources refer to the "Kishinev pogrom", back then the town was an integral part of the Russian empire. You moved it without consensus and it's your responsibility to fix the mess. In the meantime the article's title will stay as it was before your unilateral intervention.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlonly, I don't see any reason for using the Russian name of the city. We have articles for other pogroms that do not use the name of the empire that owned them (for example Warsaw pogrom (1881) although Warsaw was under the Russian Empire and should then be named "Varshava" or something like that). Note that this was the only Wikipedia article that used "Kishinev" in its title. SuperΨDro 17:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. You win for now. Please fix the mess that I did accidentally by trying to change back the title.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that you have also changed the correct, historically accurate name Kishinev to "Chisinau" throughout. Please note for future reference that in most cases the contemporary English-name of the city or place is used. There's a consensus to use "Constantinople" pre-1930, "Istanbul" afterwards; similar with other renamed cities such as Stalingrad/Volgograd and St. Petersburg/Leningrad to give a few examples. In the example you give above, "Warsaw" has been for centuries the common English-language name of the city that is now the capital of Poland. Renaming Kishinev pogrom article is like moving Battle of Stalingrad to Battle of Volgograd ignoring the vast majority of reliable sources that use the historically accurate name. (t · c) buidhe 12:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Wikipedia content has to be explicitly sourced in the article itself. Wikipedias in other languages and other categories don't cut it. See WP:VERIFY. Perhaps add a mention of this to Gheorghe Hagi's "personal life" section with the references you mentioned in your edit summary? (I haven't checked their reliability.) Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robby.is.on, done. If you are going to check the sources, take in account that Aromanians are sometimes called "machedoni/macedoni" in Romanian, but we call actual Macedonians "macedoneni". SuperΨDro 11:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! :-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and happy editing to you as well! SuperΨDro 12:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, haha one single revert triggers you that much as to call me disruptive and threaten me with a block? SuperΨDro 22:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus, it's not the first time you have been told content needs to be referenced. If you keep adding unsourced content, that will get you blocked sooner or later because it's disruptive. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are acting as if I've done a crime. I have only restored an unsourced list that has been on Wikipedia for years. I was going to add an unreferenced tag a bit later. I highly doubt that such an action will get me blocked. I don't know why are you getting involved and I don't know if you are aware I am not any beginner on here. You first messaged me over one single category which I later justified by adding like 5 sources on Hagi's personal life section. SuperΨDro 23:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a comment because I got the impression that you didn't understand why you got the warning and I wanted to help with that.
Whether one initially adds the content and whether one restores it, doesn't really matter. It needs to be sourced. I don't know if you are aware I am not any beginner on here That makes it all the more baffling that you are still flouting WP:VERIFY, one of Wikipedia's most basic principles. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This warning is excessive. I don't mind getting a "personalized" message like the one you sent me earlier today but I don't like getting these automatized templates that are usually used by vandals as if I did something terrible. Regarding the last thing, please check my talk archives and search for more warnings of this kind. You might see a few, but I am definitively not "still flouting WP:VERIFY". SuperΨDro 23:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. As an established user I don't like receiving templated warnings, either. But adding unsourced content twice on the same day is not a good look. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first one was just a category I added. Hagi was said to be Aromanian in other pages. It isn't like it was a strange completely new change to Wikipedia. I am getting tired fast of this whole thing. If you think this template and admin's behaviour is appropiate (if you did not know, I got reported over such simple revert), go ahead, I am not going to discuss about this any further. SuperΨDro 23:38, 6 February 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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
I don't think anyone explained the actual problem reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#"Trigger" so here it is. First, editors mustassume good faith so if someone leaves a warning on your talk you must assume they have a reason related to improving the encyclopedia. You might privately doubt that but you must act as if it were true until good evidence (not a hunch) suggests otherwise. Second, whatever your level of English, your reply was clearly an abusive retort—the actual word used is not the point. At Wikipedia, contributors must collaborate and avoid language typically used to win battles in other corners of the internet. Given that you do not understand the meaning of trigger as used on the internet, please be sure to never use that term again. If you want to know why someone left a warning (although the wording was obvious) you should politely ask. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do know why I was left that warning and it was excessive. This user overreacted for one revert edit and that annoyed me, so I replied accordingly, I just made a poor choice of words with "triggered". This is the first contact I had with the admin. Did I say anything wrong? No, but when you are left a vandal template and are threatened with a block, you change your behaviour. I wasn't just going to let that message in my talk. Looking at the behavior of the user in the rest of the report, who really seems to think his actions were justified, AND also complaining that I have "insulted" him (when he has acted badly since the very start), I do not regret anything (except using "triggered"). Good faith was broken since the first place. This whole thing shouldn't have happened if it wasn't because of this user's aggressive behaviour. I also have a strong belief that the last comment made there is quite accurate, and that this is the reason why you messaged me. Most people that participated on the discussion acted one-sidedly. SuperΨDro 10:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a standard template: {{uw-unsourced2}}. See the dozens of similar warnings in the documentation. Many of those point out that continuing to do something that contradicts a policy may lead to a block. You might not be used to them but they are part of Wikipedia and people are supposed to focus on the message (the claim of adding unsourced text) and debate that rather than attack the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get sent that one warning, and this user had no intention of discussing. If that was the case, he could have left a message just like the editor above his warning did. It's that simple. SuperΨDro 10:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 "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 deleted 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. LizRead!Talk! 15:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The category was replaced by a new one called "Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Artsakh". It should have been renamed instead of replaced but I am fine with it I guess. SuperΨDro 15:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only Székely (supposedly) that supports the Székely dialect being a different language. Can you provide sources showing more people doing this? By the way, that claim that you've done, that Romania recognizes the Székely people as different from Hungarians, is false. SuperΨDro 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Why is that in Romanian census there exist Szekely population table? If it wouldn't be recognized as such? Magysze (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few hundred Székelys declared themselves as such instead of Hungarians. And that doesn't mean Romania recognizes the Székelys as being different. SuperΨDro 14:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have been contributing to east Europe related articles.
Please do visit Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları an article about commoner women's slavery in Ottoman times. I have been looking for more contribution and expansion to Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları from editors who have been working on east Europe related articles. Kindly do help expand the article Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları, if you find yourself interested.
Hello, I helped a bit last time, but I honestly don't feel like it now. Maybe in a few days I decide to take a look at the article again though. SuperΨDro 11:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to emphasise that the Moldovan language is a form of Romanian in the article about the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet. The alphabet is only used in Transnistria, where the term “Romanian” has never been used. There, the term actually becomes irrelevant in this article. I think you should be cautious so that you don’t turn this into a political matter. You are free to emphasise the term “Romanian” in almost every article about matters connected to this situation, but in this case, it’s simply not relevant. We should acknowledge the fact that the state of Transnistria and its people call it Moldovan and nothing else, much like Montenegro abandoned the term “Serbian” a few years ago. If we don’t adapt to reality, we are twisting it based on political preference and this is hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of consensus, I would also like to ask you not to make any more changes in this article until we have come to some sort of terms here. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why there would be any reason not to say that Moldovan is a variety of Romanian. Simply putting "Moldovan" there implies that Moldovan is a language of its own, which is false. This edit where I putted "Moldovan (a variety of Romanian)" looked good to me. The term "Romanian" was used in Transnistria before Soviet authorities decided to change their language for being mad for not having gotten one more colony for their vast empire, so "Moldovan" hasn't been the common term for even 100 years, while Romanian has been for centuries already. By the way, don't forget that the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet was used in Moldova, not just in Transnistria. Now that there is such a strong discussion in the country about whether the Moldovan language actually exists or not, a note saying that it is Romanian is simply relevant. This issue is not only about Transnistria. I would have done the same if Moldova still used this alphabet. In conclusion, I don't see a problem adding a brief mention saying that Moldovan is a variety of Romanian. And about the Montenegrin language, I don't see too many linguists treating this new language very seriously. SuperΨDro 11:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry to have to be blunt, but in my opinion, you are waging a war against the term “Moldovan” on Wikipedia that I insist must come to an end. The name is a part of the political reality of today whether you like it or not. You may do as you see fit in the articles about Moldova and the Moldovan language, but in matters regarding Transnistria, the term “Romanian” is, in fact, completely irrelevant today despite its history as a part of the Soviet Union. What happened in the Soviet Union is not relevant to the modern state of Transnistria, nor its language policy, unless you want to write about the history further down in the article. However, I still believe that the historical and political discussion should be kept in the article about Moldova and the Moldovan language, where it’s relevant. Furthermore: the Montenegrin matter is not about linguistics (and neither is the Moldovan matter). It’s about identity more than anything. An identity that Wikipedia shouldn’t argue about, but rather accept as the reality it is. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you are also pushing pro-Transnistrian and pro-Moldovan language views. I am more "permissive" in my edits on the subject: I usually leave the mention of Moldovan as long as it is said it is Romanian. However, you want to remove "Romanian" from any mention and just leave "Moldovan". This is why this edit war is happening. Politics don't matter in linguistics. It is a reality that the Moldovan language is exactly the same as Romanian. When someone identifies with something false, Wikipedia has to question it. Sure, Moldovans can identify as such, ethnic identity is different from this matter. But languages are not abstract things that one can change at any time. I can begin to identify myself as Wallachian, but I cannot say that my language is Wallachian, because it does not exist. Facts remain as facts, no matter their location (the Moldovan language is not more "real" when we are talking about Transnistria than when we are talking about Moldova) and no matter what an unrecognized small state says about them. SuperΨDro 12:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not pushing any views at all. I’m adapting to the language policy in Transnistria and reality as it is. I insist that the term “Romanian” has no place in articles about the language policy of Transnistria. They don’t use the term there and will not start doing it just because you, for some reason, insist on starting an aggressive debate on it almost every time you get the chance. We’re not talking about whether Moldovan is a real language or not. We’re talking about the reality of the language policy in Transnistria. Furthermore: it is not the place of Wikipedia to “question” anything! You’re in the wrong place if you think this is a forum for “questioning” the political reality of states having policies that you don’t agree with. Be constructive and leave the term “Romanian” in the article about Moldova, where the term is actually used by some people. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The academic consensus is clear. Moldovan is Romanian. And Wikipedia is based on consensus and reliable sources, and if something goes against it, it should be questioned. Again, the Transnistrian language policy is not relevant. Whether they use or not the term "Romanian" is equally irrelevant. I ask you as well to be constructive and not remove "Romanian" from every article slightly related to Transnistria. Search for a compromise between the two instead of just imposing the view you prefer. SuperΨDro 13:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's probably time to tell you, please think and write your message and only then publish it so I don't get 4 notifications every time I debate with you. SuperΨDro 13:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood something quite fundamental here. Whether Moldovan is the same as Romanian according to the academic consensus is, interestingly, not necessarily relevant here. This is why we have an article about the Moldovan language and an article about the Montenegrin language. It is not as easy as stating that the Moldovan language concept doesn’t exist because linguists don’t acknowledge it. In that case, the article about the Montenegrin wouldn’t exist either. The terms become relevant because they are a part of the consitution in the countries they are used in. You should also take into account that the distinction between a language and a dialect isn’t always very clear. This is why we should be cautious about expressing ourselves as you do when you state that “there is no Moldovan language”. I will continue to remove any notion indicating that the language spoken in Transnistria is called “Romanian”, as all sources indicate that the term isn’t used there. Transnistria is a special case. If you want to reintroduce the term “Romanian”, you have to back it up with a source. Until then, you have free reign in the articles about Moldova and the Moldovan language (as long as you back your claims up with sources, of course). Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to take this opportunity to warn you. You have been edit warring against a sourced fact – that the language is called Moldovan and nothing else in Transnistria – multiple times. I’ve been forced to clean up after you over and over again. In the article about the letter, you do the same, despite the headline reading “language” and nothing else. It’s quite obvious that you’re making these edits based on your own personal views and not based on what the sources tell us. Here, you’re not acting in the best interest of this encyclopedia. I have also noticed how you move articles against consensus and repeatedly add unsourced information. These disruptive edits are not acceptable by any means and I think they warrant a warning. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are annoying me for real. Yes, you're right on that the concept of a Moldovan language exists, nobody opposed this. "You should also take into account that the distinction between a language and a dialect isn’t always very clear." in this case it is 100% clear that both Romanian and Moldovan are the same. I, with my scarce knowledge of my native language, can understand with the same ease/difficulty someone from Moldova and from my native city. "I have also noticed how you move articles against consensus and repeatedly add unsourced information" yeah you say this because of the stuff above right? Another person who does not put a minimum effort in research and says the first thing he sees. I don't know if you are aware that I have been here for almost 5 years. I invite you to look at my talk page archives and look for more similar warnings. I consider these above to be all the product of a repeated series of bad luck. And know that edit warring is a game of two. If I have edit warred, you have edit warred too. So this warning is meaningless. But honestly, do whatever you want. I am sick of this wave of editors who are dedicated to degrading my edits. I'm not looking for any recognition, but being continually labeled as "disruptive" and harmful is pretty tiring. I'm not looking for any toxic argument so I'm stepping down and calming down, so you can continue with your pov-pushing (which you now extended by adding "Moldovan" names into Transnistrian city articles) from now on. By the way, just as obvious as it is that I defend one stance, it is just as obvious that you defend another. Don't think you are the good, neutral guy here (and by this I don't mean there's any bad one either). SuperΨDro 16:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s acquire some perspective on this matter. First of all: reverting disruptive edits is not edit warring. It wasn’t I who continuously added removed unsourced information, continuously renamed the Moldovan language “Romanian” in an article about a state where the language is called Moldovan despite a lack of sources, continuously renamed the Moldovan language “Moldovan Cyrillic” despite the headline reading in the article being “language” and moved an article without the slightest bit of consensus. Secondly: I find the whole matter more surprising in light of you being here for five years already. Disruptive edits can be excused in the case of beginners, but when someone has been here for several years, they really should have learned to respect the rules about sources and also hopefully adopted a more humble attitude against the community that this is. I don’t see in what way anyone is “dedicated to degrading” your edits. I think both mine and other users response has been adequate considering your activity here as of late. It doesn’t belittle other ways you may be a valuable asset to the encyclopedia. For my part, I don’t doubt that you have contributed in many positive ways to our community in other ways. I’m not trying to make you feel like less of a user than the rest of us. I just wish that you would be a bit more humble and maybe concede that I and other users have had a reason to react to some of your previous edits. I honestly think this would help in further communication. We may all make mistakes, but at least admitting to having done them makes you look a lot better than explaining them by “a repeated series of bad luck”. It’s not a question of bad luck when it’s a pattern, irrespective of how recent it is or how long the user has been active. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, enough victimization, I still don't agree with completely everything that you're saying, but you are right in that I've been excessively aggressive this time, as I still perceive the earlier warnings as simply being, mostly, unfair. I am going to stop engaging in debates of any kind for some time unless it's completely neccessary. I don't know what exactly has provoked this behaviour lately and hopefully time will make it go away. Let's finish this without grudges and bad attitudes between each other. SuperΨDro 18:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the rules of Wikipedia are very clear when it comes to these matters. I do hope, however, that we will have a more fruitful contact in the future (as we do seem to be interested in similar topics). Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You seem to have some form of a clue about this (especially given the extended discussions above), so asking about this article and this edit. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, hello. I am not good at that kind of stuff but I can help a little. I think the American and British (I think it's British) respells are perfect, it's how I'd expect them to say it, although I don't know what adding ":" to a letter would change. I consider "əʊ" and "NOH", added by that user, to be incorrect for the English pronunciation. However, "NOW" at KISH-ih-NOW (for example) implies something like a vocal sound as in "nah", but I think most Romanians would pronounce it as in "no", so "nou" (in upper case) could perhaps be the most appropiate option in their case. This is just a little remark as there is no Romanian respell in the article.
The IPA pronunciations are something harder to deal with. I dont know what means the "ˌ" at /ˌkɪʃɪˈnaʊ/, so I can't say much there, but for sure, ᵻ shouldn't be used as I think that's the sound used to represent â/î. The Romanian one looks improvable. I looked at "Chișinău" in Romanian Wiktionary and it showed up "/ki.ʃi'nəu/", which looks like a most accurate representation for me. But be aware that I am not any kind of expert on this topic and there are people who could be way more useful than me. SuperΨDro 09:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, SD. I'm not sure whether your capitalisation of "gypsies" is correct or not (that's not a polite disagreement btw, I'm genuinely not sure). My source (very reputable btw) doesn't capitalise, but the capitalised version is very much correct to refer specifically to Anglo-Romani people. In the UK, when it is not capitalised it can refer to other groups with lesser or greater cultural connection to Anglo-Romanies, like Scottish Travellers (para-Romani), Highland Travellers (probably a bit Romani) and Irish Travellers (not Romani). The people I'm talking about are probably Romani, or at least were later integrated into Romani society, but they aren't the group we capitalise as "Gypsy" in the UK. Anyway, what do you think? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sorry mistake, source capitalises except in titles (!). Your edit is correct. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. "Gypsy" is technically a demonym (or whatever the name of a stateless minority is called) so I have always assumed that it goes capitalized, although it is true that I have seen the word in lower case, but not too often in Wikipedia. SuperΨDro 16:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Warning for moving “Synod of Jassy” against consensus[edit]
I am warning you for moving the article “Synod of Jassy” to “Synod of Iași” without any initial discussion. Neither I nor anyone else mind you starting a discussion about the name, but the discussion should have preceded the move. This is the second time you have moved a page against consensus. Normally, I would take a much lighter approach, but you have claimed to have been here for five years already and are clearly aware of the rules of this encyclopedia (or must have been at least after the last time you received a warning for moving a page against consensus).
Åttiotrean 226, you seem to be following my edits and taking sides opposite of mine's for... whatever reason. Why do you give me a warning for something I did half a month ago, which is still under discussion and that some editors are in favor of? I already said that I stepped down, but it seems that this is giving you more confidence to do this kind of stuff. I haven't started playing your game yet, but I'm slowly getting more reasons to do so. SuperΨDro 09:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that no one gave you a warning when it happened (and I still maintain that two weeks ago is recently). I would normally have left it alone, but I do perceive a pattern and I think a line should be drawn against this kind of behaviour. This encyclopedia is a community, where we work together in hope of achieving some sort of consensus. When you continue to move pages without any kind of discussion, you are challenging this order. When you do it even after being warned, you also show that you do not respect the rules of the community. As a member of this encyclopedia, I do take it seriously. Åttiotrean226☭ 09:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore: I ask you not to make this out to be some sort of personal battle between two users. We have had fruitful discussions before and I intend to keep it that way. I gave you this warning for the benefit of the order of this encyclopedia and not out of spite or as a part of some sort of war. If you want to make this personal, you are free to do so, but I will take no part in it. Åttiotrean226☭ 09:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt I've moved a page in the last few days so it's hard not to consider this for personal reasons. You do not warn a user for something they did a long time ago that has not been reiterated. And you gave me one already for your information. So it is hard not to consider this for personal reasons. SuperΨDro 10:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the page like you did would normally not warrant a warning (at least not from me). We all, including myself, make mistakes. The reason behind this warning is the fact that you did it despite being warned several times before (if only one time for moving a page, but I think one time should be enough, since you are an experienced user). It can hardly be difficult to remember to initiate a discussion if you want to move a page. This is the best way to avoid being warned in future. Åttiotrean226☭ 10:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get any single warning about page moving before I moved those two so I wasn't warned "several times". I intend to end this bad Wikipedia streak but your actions are not allowing me to do so. I don't know what personal reasons could you have but any editor who saw you so often on my talk page and the discussions I'm participating in, as well as your two warnings here, could easily make their own conclusions. SuperΨDro 10:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your disruptive edits, which are, in fact, also relevant as a part of a pattern of going against the rules. It is true that you were never formally warned for moving the Kishinev pogrom article, but I do think that the user remonstrating with you over that could be considered equal to some sort of warning. As I see it, the main reason for you not being able to end your “bad streak” is your own disregardment of the rules and your recurring unwillingness to admit to having made a mistake. Åttiotrean226☭ 10:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me what "disruptive edits" are you referring to (although I imagine them already)? The user that disputed my move (I assume that you refer to Buidhe) did in 2 February 2021; I moved "Synod of Jassy" in 1 February 2021 (not half a month as I thought first, making your reasons to warn me once again weaker). Moving the Kishinev pogrom page was an error, to call a mistake moving the Synod of Jassy is still being under discussion. Anything else, except being more aggressive with the issue with the Transnistrian pages, is not my fault. SuperΨDro 10:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have already discussed your disruptive edits regarding the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet on this talk page. I have no intention of going into detail once again. I honestly think it is completely immaterial if it was two weeks or a month since you did the move. Focusing on exactly when it happened seems to me like a way to move focus away from the fact that you have continued to disregard the rules despite being aware of them. Åttiotrean226☭ 11:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So only the edits related to the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet is what you have? I decided to give up on that discussion but know that you brought up those "disruptive edits", "unsourced edits" (you didn't give any sources either) and "I have to clean what this disruptive editor does" arguments out of nowhere. I advise you to stop demonizing me, I don't need an editor who tracks my edits and leaves me warnings for stuff I haven't done since a month. Again, I have already acknowledged my mistake in "Kishinev pogrom", but it is not clear that "Synod of Jassy" is the most common version and there was no discussion before so I did not break any consensus or any rules. SuperΨDro 11:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have made several other disruptive edits. You can just review this talk page again, where you have been warned and threatened with a block for adding unsourced content. I did not bring those up to demonise you; you did ask for more examples and I provided them. Otherwise, I can promise you that I would have left them alone. Furthermore: I will continue to react against users who use Wikipedia as their own private homepage whenever it suits them. If you consider that demonising, there is nothing I can do, but I sincerely hope I will never be forced to warn you again. I also hope you will not end up being blocked, because I do think that you are an asset to the encyclopedia as long as you respect the rules. Åttiotrean226☭ 11:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was first threatened with block by an angry admin who straight up removed a list that was kept for years on the article. Earlier it was for a category, and you don't need sources for categories. The third time was when I added a name to a year page although that page had no warning of bringing sources to the new entries unlike other similar pages do. The warning about the category was civilized and constructive, but the others were completely unnecessary. And the claims that I may use Wikipedia as my own private homepage whenever it suits me can also be directed to you. As I said before, there's two equal sides to these discussions, and both happen to have edit warred. SuperΨDro 12:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaning up after you had made disruptive edits by means of reverting those edits is not edit warring by any means. Many users are forced to do that when users continue to reintroduce new, unsourced information despite that consensus has not yet been reached in an ongoing discussion, which we had at the time. I think you should take responsibility for your actions instead of throwing it back on those who have to clean up after you. It is not responsible nor worthy of someone who claims to have been here for five years already. I can guarantee you that you will continue to run into upset members who oppose your approach to this community if you continue to break the rules. We are already several members who have reacted and for your own sake, I suggest that you are careful about raising that number even more. It may end up with a block. Åttiotrean226☭ 12:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to remind you that many of your changes were unsourced too and we started discussing after those edits. Also, you clearly edit warred too, don't try to hide it with some kind of noble acts. I am not going to take any responsability for actions that are not to blame of, discussions are discussions, that's all. I already specified what I do and what don't I admit having done wrong in those earlier edits. And I will once again remind you that you warned me over something that happened one month ago. I'd like to know how am I continuing to break Wikipedia's rules. SuperΨDro 14:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting disruptive edits is not edit warring. Stop being ridiculous. I have already told you that I warned you now despite the fact that it was several weeks ago only because I perceive a pattern in which you continue to disregard the rules. That being said (for about the fifth time), I am leaving this so-called discussion. I will use this and our other discussions as a reference the next time you are warned (presuming that that happens). Åttiotrean226☭ 17:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This supposed "pattern" that you perceive "started" before I got any warning about page moving. And you didn't revert any disruptive edits, because there weren't any. You just reverted the edits of an editor that supported a different view from yours. I am not calling your edits disruptive just because I disagree with them, so I ask you to not do the same. SuperΨDro 17:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how this works. If there is an ongoing discussion and you reintroduce unsourced material into the article, it is disruptive. My removal of such information is neither disruptive or part of the edit war that you started by continuing to reintroduce this unsourced information. It is as simple as that. There is nothing to debate here. Åttiotrean226☭ 17:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Links to other passports in the article about the Transnistrian passport[edit]
Hello again! I noticed that you included a link to the Romanian passport in the article about the Transnistrian passport. I have also noticed that there are several links to other passports as well, like the Moldovan one. Is there a relevance to those that I am not aware of? Åttiotrean226☭ 16:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all those passports are from relevant countries for Transnistria, especially Moldova, so I don't see any problem for leaving those links. SuperΨDro 17:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested it was a problem. I contacted you out of pure curiosity, as I fail to see the relevance myself. I just wonder how Romania is relevant to Transnistria (Moldova is definitely relevant, as Transnistria is still a de jure part of Moldova.) Romania is a different country altogether, though. Åttiotrean226☭ 17:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Romania is a very relevant country for Moldova and it consequently is relevant for Transnistria too. There also are cases of Transnistrians acquiring a Romanian passport (through a Moldovan one or just directly the Romanian one) to emigrate to the EU [8]. Romania is more relevant for Transnistria than Ukraine for example in my opinion. SuperΨDro 17:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I see your point. Thank you for elaborating on this. Åttiotrean226☭ 17:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I have given our disputes some thinking. As I noticed you asked another presumed administrator about past disputes with other users, I just want to say that I do apologise if I have made you feel unwelcome here. While I do think that my warning as well as my stand in our disputes were both justified, I do not want to you to think that I have made it some kind of mission to supervise you here. I have several times been pointing at the fact that this is a community and that I think that you have an important place here, especially, in my opinion, as a knowledgeable person with many interests. I think that is very valuable. I stand by what I recently said about you being an asset to this encyclopedia.
At the same time, I find this situation a bit difficult to deal with. We are, at least for the most part, interested in the same topics and I have my “periods” of special interests, limiting my interest to certain kinds of articles, which you may perceive as having singled you out (although I can assure you this is not the case). What makes the situation difficult for me is this: I, as a dedicated member, am especially concerned about some articles and when I think that you act in a much less constructive way than can be expected of an experienced user, for example by engaging in edit wars, moving articles without a discussion and reintroducing unsourced material, I naturally want to act for the benefit of the articles. The articles do, in a way, belong to all of us. You recently accused me of hounding and while I said I would not accept such an accusation, it does hurt me to learn that you perceive my stands that way. At the same time, I have no idea what to actually do about it. If you do anything that is against the rules or that I think is harming the articles that I am also interested in, I think I have a right to say it (and especially if it happens for the fifth time or so). I do not think that I should feel that I cannot ask you stop doing something that is clearly against the rules, lest I be accused of having a personal interest in harming you or undermining your contributions to the community.
So, to conclude: I want to solve this to the benefit of both of us, but I think it is impossible to do so unless I do tell you how I feel and we discuss how to solve it. I sincerely hope that we are able to do so. Rest assured, as I can see that you have an honest intent with your contributions, I will keep those in mind for the future. Åttiotrean226☭ 18:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. I am probably going to take a break, except for answering at the FA review I have pending. SuperΨDro 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why will you take a break? What is it that does not matter? Åttiotrean226☭ 21:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Romanians, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this time the Saint George's Cross version of the flag of the Banat is just as sourced as the other, also the article in the source for it is signed by a heraldist, whilst the other just by a journalist, so please stop removing it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetrusdictusA (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PetrusdictusA, alright, I assumed it was unsourced like before, so sorry about that, but you added some unsourced info at the end of the paragraph. Do you have any source for that part? SuperΨDro 18:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can find that by reading the article about the Saint George's Cross flag of the Banat, clearly in conservative tone, and people flying it here, in the Banat, are conservatives and eurosceptics. You can find their facebook pages where they explain all that.--PetrusdictusA (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you have joined a discussion on Communist nostalgia and in light of your connection to Romania and your interest in the country, I was wondering if you have any knowledge about how present communist nostalgia is in Romania today. At it seems to have been strongly present a few years ago, I took the liberty to add an older article, but with political changes throughout Europe in the past years, I suppose things might have changed. Feel free to contribute to the article if you want, but if not, I would still be interested in hearing your views about the situation in Romania today (if you have time, of course). Åttiotrean226☭ 12:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I will leave my reply there. SuperΨDro 14:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also requesting to visit Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları, an article is about Ottoman times female slavery with a special focus on the state of non-elite common women slavery in those times; and help expand the same if you find yourself interested in the topic.
Sorry, right now I am busy with another article and I plan to create a few once I'm over with it, so I don't think I'll be able to help much. SuperΨDro 10:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing personal at all against you; nor have I made it my mission to make accusations at you (and certainly not groundless ones). As you seem to think that I have, though, I am hereby telling you that from now on, I will no longer make any attemps at any new or further discussions regarding rules or what I think is disruptive or not. I am tired of being accused of making groundless accusations at you, but as it seems that there is no way to change your opinion on that (or getting you to see that my motives are based on my interest in certain articles), I see no reason but to stop trying to initiate any more discussions.
Due to other circumstances as well, I will probably take a real break within a few days and not edit much at all, so I guess that concludes our contact here. Åttiotrean226☭ 20:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I appreciate that this is finally going to stop. Be aware that since our last talk in your talk page I changed my opinion on you, but your edits today and yesterday (or the day before yesterday) made me doubt this again. And that's all I've got to say, it isn't worth saying more. SuperΨDro 20:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you felt that way. I should get better at apologising when I jump ahead or make mistakes myself. My apologies for the source, by the way; I did not look throughly enough in the article. I had no idea the Day of the Union of Bessarabia with Romania is celebrated in Transnistria, but I should have looked at the sources at the bottom of the article. Åttiotrean226☭ 22:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:SOAD Genocidal Humanoidz.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.
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 "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 deleted 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. Jonteemil (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I left you my reply on your talk page. By the way, I didn't revert all of them. SuperΨDro 13:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I red what you had to tell me thus let me now tell you that you haven't explained anything. You reverted all the edits, not the unsourced information. You continue to lie. And let me tell you that I understand very well what you are doing. I do not come from any place where people have no clue about the propaganda in the Balkans. I am sure you understand very well my point. As for antagonizing, you are adding more lies. You antagonized me from the very beginning by reverting content that has nothing wrong from the point of view of a common editor. You behave like being the Romanian ambassador in Wiki. It's pointless to continue to discuss with you any further.Legione-Romana (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Legione-Romana (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop accusing me falsely of disruptive and of biased editing.
Next time it will not be just a notification!Legione-Romana (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify what do you mean by biased editing, changing information to something different than the source says?Legione-Romana (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legione-Romana, please stop spamming my talk page. You are removing everything you don't agree with and have an obvious issue with Romania. By the way, a lot of what you're removing is sourced information. That is disruptive and you are damaging Wikipedia. You cannot change everything to whatever you want, no matter how correct you think you are. SuperΨDro 12:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dromaeosaurus, please stop your disruptive editing on the page Aromanian.Legione-Romana (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify based on which procedure can you penalise me for disruptive editing?Legione-Romana (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:DISRUPT#Examples of disruptive editing. You fullfill point 1 (continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors), point 2 (Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, fails to cite sources, [...] misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research) and point 3 (Does not engage in consensus building). SuperΨDro 12:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific. Do not answer by reading the general terms of the procedure from Wikipedia.
(point 1)-What do you mean by opposition from other editors? Who are those editors? You?
(point 2)-You evaluate that I Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, fail to cite sources, [...] misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Have you asked yourself if you satisfy the above when you add irrelevant, outdated, sources when you disrupt my edits on the Aromanian page and so on?
point 3 (Does not engage in consensus building). Do you yourself engage in consensus building when you just simply revert my edits, like the recent one on the page Aromanaians?
Last but not least, did you notify me about the supposed disruptive editing before escalating to penalising?Legione-Romana (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, mainly me. But also Borsoka [9] and Macrakis [10].
2. That those sources are "irrelevant" and "outdated" is your opinion (by the way, one was a 2021 thesis). Also, I provided sources to change your mass deletions of text on several occassions [11][12].
3. I offered you help and wanted to explain and talk with you the first revert I did. Your response was that I was lying, that I was enforcing my biased opinion, etc.. That's not consensus building.
And I did not penalise you, I can't do that. I warned (or notified) you. SuperΨDro 13:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point(1)- I did not have any discussion with the users Borsoka or Macraki but only with you. So you are those other users? I did not have any issue with Macrakis, he did his intervention and that stoped there. As for Borosca they just reverted all of my edits. In your opinion that is the right action, just to simply undo all edits without naming the problematic ones?
Point(2)- sources are "irrelevant" and "outdated". Again, please be specific and do not mix & match the data according to your interest and will. Outdated and irrelevant sources are not my opinion, that is a fact and the explanation has been provided on each case. The source that you are mentioning the2021 thesis what do you mean by that? That an irrelevant source from 2021 should be kept just because it is a recent one?
Point(3)- By bringing back the incident from yesterday in order to justify your today's behaviour constitutes consensus building in your opinion, right? And you are an experienced user who issues warnings to new editors on issues that you do not respect yourself? Why do I have to take into consideration your opinion when you ignore mine?Legione-Romana (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I did not have any discussion with the users Borsoka" what? Macraki reverted you too, by the way. The page doesn't say discuss, but oppose, and that includes reverts. "without naming the problematic ones?" I told you the issues of your first edits. You ignored me. "Outdated and irrelevant sources are not my opinion, that is a fact" nope "explanation has been provided on each case" no you didn't. "That an irrelevant source from 2021 should be kept just because it is a recent one?" if it's recent it's not outdated. And that it is irrelevant is your opinion again. "By bringing back the incident from yesterday in order to justify your today's behaviour constitutes consensus building in your opinion, right?" what do you mean here? "And you are an experienced user who issues warnings to new editors" So? It isn't like only inexperienced editors can warn others. "on issues that you do not respect yourself" ??? "Why do I have to take into consideration your opinion when you ignore mine?" You ignored mine. SuperΨDro 15:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please do not mix and match the issues according to your will.
If you say so. SuperΨDro 18:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide the evidence that I have discussed with Borsoka about the pages Aromanians & Aromanian language.
Nobody said at any moment this is restricted to those two pages.
- Please provide the evidence that I have discussed with Macraki about the pages Aromanians & Aromanian language. And he did not revert all of my edits but modified part of them namely two issues by editing source is needed. Those are still there.
Nobody said you discussed with that user. And he did revert many things you rewrote, not clicking the button, manually but still reverted [13].
- The page doesn't say discuss but oppose, and that includes reverts? So you have the right to just simply revert without discussing the issue, without any explanation, right? Whereas I do not have the right to oppose by editing?
If someone reverts your edits, they are opposing it. Common sense. So you have the right to just simply revert without discussing the issue, without any explanation, right? I wanted to discuss it with you, but you ignored me and "reported" me in the Teahouse. Why do you want to discuss only at this point and in a way it is not improving any article? Whereas I do not have the right to oppose by editing? Nobody said this. Don't play victim.
- U told me the issues of my first edits. I ignored you. You again are recalling the incident for the third time and using it as a justification for your abusive behaviour of today.
What abusive behaviour? And I can repeat that as many times as I want, because it is what happened.
- Why your explanation about the irrelevant and outdated sources is valid and mine not? Because it is yours?
I didn't say in any case any source is irrelevant and outdated, you did.
- Again the source from 2021 is irrelevant, not outdated! Do not try to justify the nonsense. That it is relevant is your opinion, my opinion is that it is not! So, why your opinion is the right one? Because it is yours? Why you did not oppose when the user Macraki deleted the same source for the same reason?
Again the source from 2021 is irrelevant why? So, why your opinion is the right one? because you cannot remove sources and just say they are "irrelevant". Why you did not oppose when the user Macraki deleted the same source for the same reason? the user gave an actual explanation. And there was a second source supporting that claim anyway, it was pointless to oppose that change.
- Yes, an explanation has been provided on each case when I have deleted sources on the two respective pages!
- What do I mean by "By bringing back the incident from yesterday in order to justify your today's behaviour constitutes consensus building? I mean exactly what the sentence says. You are recalling the incident in order to justify the fact that you did not bring any of your concerns for my today's edits, that I ignored you yesterday.
So? What you did doesn't expire in 24 hours. I wanted to discuss, you rejected, and we are here.
- About warning new editors. What is that you do not understand? The fact that you warn me for the same issues that you as an experienced user do not respect yourself?
I don't understand you.
- "Why do I have to take into consideration your opinion when you ignore mine? -You ignored mine. You see you keep recalling the incident and you are admitting that both parts ignore each other but with the difference that you have the right to revert edits and issue warnings whereas I have just to obey. Professional approach.
That I keep recalling it doesn't represent any issue. "you are admitting that both parts ignore each other" when? I have just to obey nobody said that.
- You send me a warning, which is a penalisation, not a notification. You do not have the right to do that for two reasons: (1) you are part of the dispute. (2) you did not inform me about the supposed disruptive editing.
It isn't a penalisation. It doesn't affect you in anyway in your editing. you are part of the dispute so? you did not inform me about the supposed disruptive editing that's the purpose of the warning.
Just to let you know that the issue will not finish here.Legione-Romana (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean you will report me, go ahead, I'm tired of these pointless discussions that won't change anything in the articles in the end. I am too lazy to write the report by myself. And it will make me look more right. Otherwise I can't say it is WP:BOOMERANG. SuperΨDro 18:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop deleting information just because it does not suit your interest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legione-Romana (talk • contribs) 16:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided that the best way to solve the difficulties we have experienced in discussions is the following:
1. I will no longer edit any articles that you edit.
2. I will not engage in any discussion that you engage or have engaged in.
I really see no other solution. I am writing this because I am tired of being accused of tracking your edits – a claim that I strongly dispute – and I honestly do not want anything other than for it to stop. It makes me very uncomfortable, as it has never been my intent. I am interested in some articles, mainly about Moldova and Transnistria, but I feel that I have no choice but to just simply stop editing them to calm this situation down. I am also writing it because I want to tell you that I have no interest in any further conflict. At this point, it is more important for me to end this than to be right when it comes to the rules. I feel that it is best to be as clear as possible and I would prefer a reply to this. Åttiotrean226☭ 17:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Åttiotrean 226, I had stopped reverting you in pages we didn't coincide in for months already, I haven't lately been removing anything that would contradict you in the pages we did coincide and I haven't accused you either of following me in the last times. But if that's your choice, so be it. I can in return propose that I will not intervene in your edits in other topics if you find a new interest (not that I would have any reason to do so, I'm just confirming it) to avoid a conflict of any kind between us anymore. SuperΨDro 16:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for replying and understanding. I feel that the problem here has been that I am very interested in Transnistria (and I am not sure which one of us had that interest at first), but I can stay away from any Transnistria-related articles as well (all to avoid ever having another argument). I also feel that I should point out that I have warned you two times and not three. If you feel that both of those warnings were unnecessary, well, then I apologise. It is possible that I did not have the full picture back then.
We have reached a conclusion and I appreciate your reply. I want to end this at all cost now and I thank you for responding. Åttiotrean226☭ 17:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very satisfied with we settling this down once for all and doing it in the way we are. My sincere apologies if I have been too pushy too (specially at the start) and good luck in your future editing! SuperΨDro 16:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is very big of you and it feels good reading it. I say mulțumesc for being kind despite our disputes in the past! I accept your apology about how things were at the start and I also wish you good luck here in the future! Åttiotrean226☭ 17:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, please remain civil even when dealing with annoying situations; the edit summary of Special:Diff/1016572302 was unnecessary. Regarding the article itself, please avoid reverting it for the next hours or days; give others a while to respond to the talk page discussion and feel free to invite others by creating a neutral invitation at WP:NPOVN, for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no problem. I had no intention of doing anything other than keep reverting the user's messages here or saying something more heated than that. Thank you very much for dealing with the problem! I was thinking of reporting to the editor myself tomorrow, so you've saved me efforts and time. And yes, I was planning to wait 24 hours to not be affected by the 3RR rule. Now I plan to remove the vast majority of the changes made by the user, but I will leave a notice in the article discussion in case there is someone who wants to restore some content. Thank you again. SuperΨDro 22:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Additional note: In the future, please refuse to hold article discussions on user talk pages; always enforce the discussion to happen on the article's talk page. On the article's talk page, please do not mention editor conduct; "you will eventually end up reported" and "stop removing sourced content" are conduct-related statements that are unsuitable for article talk pages. By responding to the other editor's behavior, even if the behavior is problematic, you are yourself leaving the recommended areas of the pyramid displayed at WP:DR. If you would like to report conduct-related problems, in this specific case, WP:ANEW could have been a venue; the dispute resolution page contains other ideas like seeking a third opinion at WP:3O. I have blocked the other editor because they have clearly been the source of the disruption, but I can't do so without mentioning that you have fueled the fire, and could have avoided doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks and no worries ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot to mention WP:DISCFAIL, my favorite essay on Wikipedia. Extremely useful advice I wasn't completely aware of when reading it the first time. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for all of these useful advices, specially that discussion essay. I'll keep all of these in mind next time. SuperΨDro 22:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For enduring harassment by a sockpuppet, tirelessly investing time to answer their questions and dealing with warnings about your correct response to their edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! SuperΨDro 09:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your work. You could really help us when you translate articles into English, by unlinking the commonly known words, including dates, years, even country names unless obscure. Thanks. Here's an example. Tony(talk) 09:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony1, I admit I link way too much stuff... Is there any policy explaining in detail what I should and shouldn't link? It would be helpful. SuperΨDro 13:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:OVERLINK. There's some room for editor choice where we might ask: how well-known is this term? how likely is a reader to click on the link (generally few links are clicked on)? How relevant is the item to the topic? The last one, in particular, should not be allowed to dominate a decision—it could well license us to link just about every word in an article. My edit, linked to above, gives you an idea. I left "boyar" linked. Readers should know that Romania is an east-European country, so we link the more specific location within it. Remember that WP isn't a dictionary. Rationing links allows us to funnel a reader into what we think are the most likely targets; and that overlinking not only looks bad aesthetically, it makes it a little harder to read smoothly. Tony(talk) 01:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the policy. I'll be more careful with overlinking next time I create a page. SuperΨDro 06:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the barnstar that you gave me a few months ago. I felt that it would be awkward for me to claim some credit for the article about the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania because other people have been responsible for the vast majority of its content. Do you think it is okay to remove some sentences from the lead section? I sometimes feel overwhelmed because of the need to change so many figures. The lead section used to be much shorter, but someone else has been adding a lot of paragraphs there from time to time. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and you're welcome. I saw you did lots of tedious work, so that's why I gave it to you. I don't think removing information is the best solution, but I understand the feeling of being overwhelmed when editing so I'd just change the wording to something more vague (let's say, "in middle April 2021 the cases numbered around 1 million") or just update figures there once a month (keeping the case figures of 1 April 2021 until it's 1 May 2021). SuperΨDro 13:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer displaying vague numbers. At least, those figures that can also be found in the infobox are not repeated as is in the paragraphs. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vague numbers it is then. SuperΨDro 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Will you be able to update this chart, this chart, and the corresponding articles regularly? I would like to discontinue updating those pages already (as well as some other similar pages), but I do not know yet if those pages will continue to be updated regularly by other editors. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. To be honest, the little interest I had in editing articles about the COVID-19 pandemic is pretty much non-existent anymore and I feel like I wouldn't do a goob job updating the templates and articles, eventially just forgetting about it. I stopped updating COVID-19 vaccination in Moldova after all. So I'd prefer not being the one in charge of this. SuperΨDro 07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I respect that. I am also getting tired already of doing some other stuff, and in the near future, I wouldn't have plenty of time anymore to do these updates regularly. By the way, do you know why the government of Romania has not reported any new recoveries since June 25? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not being of much help. It is normal that you got tired, you've went on for months updating lots of pages. Regarding the Romania and Moldova COVID-19 pages, I can only think of two users who could maybe be interested in updating them, as they contributed to COVID-19 vaccination in Romania greatly (perhaps to more COVID-19 articles too, but I don't remember right now). I mean Alexandru M. and JeyReydar97 (these are their usernames), I am not pinging them as I don't see it necessary, although I don't like mentioning usernames without the users knowing. I actually don't know if they will be too eager as they haven't edited too many COVID-19 pandemic pages recently. And no, sorry again, but I don't know anything about the last thing. SuperΨDro 15:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:AUR party logo.png[edit]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:AUR party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Buna. Nu, nu sughit in scris. Eram doar curios: ce voiai sa spui, ca honvezii au intrat intr-o stare de nebunie temporara? De furie necontrolata? De panica agresiva? Nu c-ar conta cine stie ce, dar acum m-ai facut curios. Multumesc! Toate cele bune, Arminden (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Salut, cred că ceea ce persoana care a scris asta a însemnat că ei au fost "isteric", poate nu este cea mai bună traducere, dar este cea mai apropiată de ceea ce cred că au însemnat acele cuvinte. Scuze daca vorbesc ciudat, nu domin încă limba română. SuperΨDro 08:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Super Dromaeosaurus! The article you nominated, Union of Bulgaria and Romania, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re your revert, you're right, and sorry I re-did it before realizing that was a piped link. As I went through and did a thousand of these in JWB, decided to go ahead and downcase also the piped linked (even though it doesn't matter, as you correctly note), since that would prevent those from matching the pattern again if I do another pass later. No big deal, sorry for the distraction. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 14, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or for Featured Articles promoted recently from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll give the article another read in the next few days and I added that page to my watchlist. SuperΨDro 13:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an admin arbitrates on the issue, please refrain from removing the disputed tag on the USR-PLUS page. Thank you. Cscescu (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cscescu you haven't even said what's so wrong about the page. Admins don't have time to check on all pages tagged with anything nor are admins the only ones allowed to remove the tags. You complained about the USR PLUS still being called "Save Romania Union", which was missing from the article, and that was fixed. What other problems does the page have to be tagged as "factually inaccurate"? SuperΨDro 16:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered we did have another interaction before in which you basically complained but refused to give me sources to help me improve a disputed article, telling me to "please leave the tag for as long as there is a neutral editor who is willing to take on the project" as if I was not eligible for that [15]. I please ask you not to delay days or weeks again to reply me just to give me an unsatisfying answer. Otherwise I'll just remove the tag again as there appears to be nothing wrong about the page. SuperΨDro 16:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-stated the reasons on the relevant talk page. Cscescu (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
It will not be considered notable here unless it has won elections at a national level. If this is the case, list the people and the positions they have been elected to
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Democracy and Solidarity Party and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Democracy and Solidarity Party, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Super Dromaeosaurus!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that two or three days ago I could read your article on the main page. Our region is under-represented in our encyclopedia and your article is a good introduction to its "story" for readers who think that our region is nothing more than a venue of blind nationalism. I hope I could read more articles from you in the future. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me why you think that Köz-pont youth office is a famous, and the only NGO of ther town which nooed to be mentioned in the lead section? Can you prove it with any source? Thanx! 2001:4C4C:20A1:C400:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about it and you can remove it if you wish, but you randomly removed or added stuff in the article. Your edit did more harm than good. SuperΨDro 11:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed it again. There was some technical mistake I did, I did not want to remove anything else but the last sentence. 2001:4C4C:20A1:C400:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. My bad. I assumed it was the reason as it was the most mentioned one in the thread. Thanks for the notice. SuperΨDro 15:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, effectively yes. However most people that identify as 'Morlach' don't utilize the term Istro-Romanian in part because most modern 'Morlachs' because of rivalries that lead to our people being forced westward from our cousins on the Adriatic peninsula & the Balkans. We also have an extensive history of intermarriage with non Vlach peoples, such as Romani, Jews, Albanians, Non-Romani Franco-'Tsiganes', etc, that has influenced the dialect. Basically it's comparable to the situation with Bosnian and its sister 'languages', effectively the same, but with loanwords and pronunciation influenced by other languages, albeit exacerbated by our diaspora. It's a dumb distinction but it is useful to utilize as a shorthand term for the dialect.
I suppose a more technical term would be 'Western' Istro-Romanian
Drake Hammer, very interesting! Where exactly do these modern Morlachs live? Istria too, or Dalmatia and Bosnia? By the way, I created some time ago a project for an Istro-Romanian Wikipedia (I think a Morlach one cannot be possible, as for starting a Wikipedia you need to use a specific language code linguistic organizations give them, and Morlach doesn't have one). It is pretty much dead, as I had put myself the goal of learning a little bit of the language for expanding it, but the resources are very few and contradictory. Maybe you would be interested on expanding it! SuperΨDro 08:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus, to answer that question, I mainly used Bosnia as a reference point to describe my people's situation. As far as I'm aware there are no Morlach in that country. However, yes, we do have a presence in Dalmatia/Albania, as well as Germany, Hungary, Austria, Italy, and France. We often make up some of the only non-Slavic Orthodox people in those countries. I myself live in America. I could see about adding more to the Istro-Romanian page. But correct me if I'm wrong, asides from possibly marking down some of the diaspora dialects, I would need to provide textual citation for any other addition to the texts, correct? I might run into the same difficulties as you then, no? The language, let alone my dialect has few original-language resources, as I'm sure as you've already discovered. How would we deal with that issue?
Drake Hammer/64.30.85.88, yes, everything has to be sourced, although this is not as strict in the English Wikipedia, where you will most likely get reverted if you don't provide a source. In fact, that Istro-Romanian Wikipedia project has no sources anywhere as far. Also, we can use sources in every single language, from English to Greek, Croatian, Romanian... There are in fact a couple of sources in Istro-Romanian in the English Wikipedia, at Istro-Romanians if I remember correctly. As you do know the language, you shouldn't really have any problems. And one last question, do you have any problem with the term "Istro-Romanian"? I haven't really seen the Morlachs being considered a distinct ethnicity, but I don't intend to offend anyone's national identity. As far as I know, Morlachs (those who migrated to Istria) were the "ancestors" of the modern Istro-Romanians, and barely a few dozens remain nowadays, but I might be wrong. SuperΨDro 18:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've avoided to expand the project too much for now because I wanted to make sure I was writing pages strictly in correct Istro-Romanian/Morlach, but there's an untranslated version I don't really know how to write in Istro-Romanian/Morlach. Do you know how to say "Main page"? It's Pagina principală in Romanian, Prota frãndzã in Aromanian and Prima pagină in Megleno-Romanian (all of these related languages to Istro-Romanian/Morlach, as you probably know). SuperΨDro 19:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus One, no, I am not offended if you utilize the term Istro-Romanian, although it may be wise to utilize a distinguishing term such as Western-or-Diaspora-Istro-Romanian to describe the dialect, given that while it is clearly Istro-Romanian in origin there are clear deviations from conventional Istro-Romanian akin to Cajun, Acadian or Quebecois French. As I said, it's politically originated term. As for your question about terms, the Western dialect would be particularly different from the Eastern one. The Western one would be something like Unni hardo negga lipra (First paper/page in/from book). I couldn't tell you much in regards to what the Eastern dialect would be, although I'm certain, given that the Eastern dialect has a heavier Croatian influence it sounds quite different. For example, I know that lipra and negga are not words taken from Romanian, but more likely lonewords from Albanian and/or Italian, so they're probably not in the Eastern dialect. Given that you're trying to represent the most widely spoken dialect of the language, you'll want to find someone thats familiar with the Eastern one and use that one as your representative for the Main Page.
Drake Hammer, well, Unni hardo negga lipra really does sound different from what I had expected it to sound. It would indeed be better to find someone with knowledge on the eastern dialect. Sorry if this was a loss of your time in the end, I appreciate this help you've given me. SuperΨDro 22:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus No need to apologize my friend. I was honestly static to find someone that actually spoke or at least was aware of Istro-Romanian, and also happened to speak English. I actually wouldn't mind if you kept me abreast of updates regarding your development of the new page, and the Istro-Romanian or Vlach-related entries in general. In turn I'll happily throw any Western or Eastern Dialect language-sources your way when I find them.
Well, it's been stagnant for months... There are very few Istro-Romanian-language resources and all use different alphabets and writing styles. It's either the completely Romanian way of writing the language used by old sources, the Croatian-Romanian mix used in the end of the 20th century or start of the 21st (which I would use) and the most recent completely Croat version. Also, most of these resources are poor and the few comprehensive ones are in Croatian (which I don't speak) or Romanian (which I don't dominate too well). Thus, if I don't find an eastern Istro-Romanian speaker that could help me, I guess the project will just stay the same. But I appreciate any source you could give me. I am only aware of two (old) academic sources in Istro-Romanian, those of Andrei Glavina. Anything else I've seen are websites (which cannot be treated the same as academic sources in Wikipedia). SuperΨDro 22:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Zangezur corridor, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Armatura (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zangezur corridor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I wanted to ask whether you have any sources on this particular matter, since it's not covered too well on Wikipedia.
As you're probably aware, Romania's western border didn't have an exact definition until the Treaty of Trianon. Two extra counties, Bichiș and Cenad, were claimed by Romania up to that point, according to the internet. In addition, Romania possibly claimed even more, probably all of Bihor, Szatmár and Maramures counties, or even the whole territory up to the Tisza river; Treaty of Bucharest (1916) seems to talk about the latter, with the western border reaching the Tisza. However, it also gives a more detailed description of the border, stating it doesn't include Debrecen. Was the territory claimed by Romania the same as the one mentioned in the Bucharest treaty, or did it look different? I believe this subject should be covered in a better way.
Please ping if you answer. Thanks for your time and have a nice evening! :) Lupishor (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lupishor. Yes, I had been searching about this some months ago and I thought of covering it in an article called "Romanian territorial ambitions during World War I" or something similar to cover every single territorial change Romania could have had in the war (including if it joined the Central Powers, I heard there were rumors of Austria-Hungary thinking of offering Bukovina to Romania). Regarding Romania's western border, the National Central Romanian Committe (I am not aware if it had some relevance like the Sfatul Țării in Bessarabia or not) claimed several counties from Hungary (there's a page of this in Romanian Wikipedia) which I think represents more or less accurately the demands of the Romanian Government from Hungary. I am certain Romania did fully annex the Bihar County and I think parts of the Békés County (former) too (I doubt if it annexed it fully). I don't know about Cenad. I think Romanian claims exceeded the ones promised at the 1916 Bucharest treaty, but I am pretty sure it didn't claim Debrecen and much less all the land up to the Tisza.
I also heard Maramureș was supposed to be fully given to Romania (with the exception of the northermost tip that you can see in this map) but the Romanian diplomats commited an error and Czechoslovakia in the end got the north, although I also heard Romania was never supposed to be given anything beyond the Tisza. But I heard this all from blogs and websites, so even if it may be dissapointing after so much text, I don't have any academic source in special to offer you. Still, I hope this info was useful to you. SuperΨDro 22:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! About Cenad, Romania did annex a part of it and owns it to this day. I don't know, however, whether it claimed more of it. Lupishor (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A report was created at the administrators noticeboard about Лобачев Владимир's constant malicious activity[edit]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: Hello, I am writing to inform you that a report was created about Лобачев Владимир's constant, systematic malicious activity in Wikipedia. Since I noticed that you encountered such actions of his recently, I strongly invite you to provide your opinion about him. Additional evidence would very welcome.
Pofka hello, I've seen and read it but I won't be able to make a throughout reply with links and diffs as I am currently on a vacation (even if I still edit, because dealing with a 7 day long watchlist would be an absolute hell). I will be able to reply the soonest at Friday and the latest at Tuesday. SuperΨDro 20:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: I shortened the report because the initial version was too long. The link is the same. Your opinion is very welcome as soon as you will be able to add it. :) -- Pofka (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just arrived home a few hours ago. I'll look into this tomorrow. SuperΨDro 21:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka, I have looked into it and it looks like that report is also going to be closed. I'd like to help into this as well, but there's no point if the reports go nowhere. I see most users said arbitration was excessive, but I see another one recommended you to make a report at WP:AE, if I am not mistaken. In case you start another report, I assure I'll give my participation this time. Good luck and don't give up into this. SuperΨDro 10:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: I discussed Лобачев_Владимир's disruptive actions with an administrator Barkeep49 (see: User_talk:Barkeep49#Regarding_Лобачев_Владимир). After these recent disruptive actions, Лобачев_Владимир was presented with discretionary sanctions (message by an administrator in his talk page), which means that any further violations of rules will likely result in serious sanctions for him. If he will continue to trample the rules of Wikipedia, you should create a report at WP:AE about him. Ping me as I will likely be able to provide additional evidence and probably ping administrator Barkeep49 because now he is familiar with Лобачев_Владимир's disruptive editing. We should monitor Лобачев_Владимир's actions attentively. Admin also noted that giving links to reports about his earlier violations of rules would be also useful in a future's report. I strongly recommend you to save these recent reports about him somewhere in your PC or similar. -- Pofka (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: Did you encountered any disruptive actions by Лобачев Владимир in Wikimedia Commons? He currently attempts to censor me because I began combating with his unreliable content there. If you have evidence about his malicious activity in Wikimedia Commons, it would be useful because I have requested to sanction him instead: here. -- Pofka (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka, I haven't had much interaction with them at Commons but I remember they for some reason used as a category title a Russian name, "Bel'tsy", for a Moldovan city whose name is Bălți. And the category wasn't about the Russian history period of the city, it was about mostly post-1917 coats of arms. Here's the link of the category's history [16]. This category is also noteworthy [17]. SuperΨDro 20:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: If you find any pro-Russian pushing of content, then add such evidence at this report. He clearly attack multiple countries identities. -- Pofka (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there's not much else that has happened on Commons. SuperΨDro 20:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Derim Hunt, I already created one long time ago. I'll add it to the article in a few minutes. Thanks for creating the page. SuperΨDro 09:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is great, thank you! -- Derim Hunt 11:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Amanuensis Balkanicus. I agree with that the concepts are similar but I believe they are different. The concept of the partition of Kosovo is only about giving North Kosovo to Serbia while the Kosovo–Serbia land swap concept also involves giving Kosovo some lands from Serbia. Also, as far as I know, the partition of Kosovo was mostly discussed in the early 2010s and before while the Kosovo–Serbia land swap has been discussed ever since 2018. There's not much else I can say as I agree both articles are very similar, but that's my rationale. SuperΨDro 17:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the distinction. However, it must be noted that the then-Kosovo government (not sure about the current one) considered the Presevo Valley to constitute "Eastern Kosovo", and therefore it wasn't part of a "land swap". Wouldn't this impact the definition here? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand. Do you mean that the government of Kosovo considered the Preševo Valley as part of Kosovo? Well, Serbia does the same to the whole of Kosovo. That it named the Preševo Valley "Eastern Kosovo"? The Serbian government also calls Kosovo "Kosovo and Metohija". I don't see how any of these stances would affect the article. Perhaps I am not getting the point, sorry if so, I don't know much in detail about the Kosovo conflict, I just found the proposal interesting and made an article about it. SuperΨDro 17:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 14 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Moldovan parliamentary election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just expanded the Pruemopterus article but I hadn't seen that you had begun working on it in your sandbox. I am so sorry, I wanted to ensure that we had all the adelophthalmids at GA level so that the good topic status wasn't threatened for the group. I noticed that your draft has a lot of stuff my version missed out on - perhaps we could merge the two and then co-nominate for GA? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem, I haven't worked on it for nearly a year anyway, so I have some fault. I'll get into it at 28–29 July, right now I am on a holiday. SuperΨDro 07:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, just didn't mean to swoop in and steal your thunder. Enjoy your holiday! There's no rush, you can add in your content and nominate it when you feel you have the time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ichthyovenator, woah... You've worked on a lot of new articles! Amazing job! It motivates me to do some expansion too. I wonder, may I edit User:Ichthyovenator/Eurypterid list draft and User:Ichthyovenator/Eurypterid overview? I want to do a few changes on them (mainly adding the Metastoma article at the eurypterid overview), if you're okay with it. Regarding Pruemopterus, which citation style should we use? I usually use now Sfn templates for articles I intend to expand and nominate to GA/FA but I still use the usual citation style for stubs and start-class articles. Not using Sfn templates brought me problems in Borchgrevinkium's GAN and I believe it looks good for obscure genera for which we don't have many sources, such as Forfarella (without the Sfn templates, the original description would be sourced a lot and the references section would look uglier in my opinion). I don't mind however just using the common citation style, it might be better to just stick to the old way to keep consistency. What do you think? SuperΨDro 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe yeah, I've been feeling the eurypterid fever returning. Thank you! You're more than welcome to edit those. I'm thinking that the Eurypterid overview can serve as an efficient place to check the progress and what has and has not been worked on, and that genera could be added to the list draft as their articles get expanded (to ensure the added information is correct, limiting the amount of work needed later) - which is why I only so far added in the Pterygotioids and Adelophthalmoids (since we're more or less "done" with those groups).
As for the citation style for Pruemopterus, I don't have a strong preference and you're welcome to use which one you want, if you think sfn will be better, go for it (though you might have to cross-check which pages the stuff I added comes from). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I've added the thing I mentioned earlier and a bit more on the eurypterid overview. In the next few days I'll merge our description sections of Pruemopterus. I'll use the Sfn citation style on the article in the end, I have no problem with checking your additions, the academic article is short after all. SuperΨDro 18:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dorfopterus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ichthyovenator -- Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking whether you're entirely sure about this - there are cases where there isn't a comma before Jr. (a notable example - Joe Biden). If Tollerton and Ciurca themselves put the comma there then that's fine of course (I can't remember). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched a bit more and I see there's no established rule on whether we should put a comma before Jr., it's like the Oxford comma. I think I'll stick to it, but you can remove it from the articles you've worked on if you wish (no problem on whether it looks nitpicky or not, that I mass changed those articles to the version with the comma is alrady pretty nitpicky from me...). SuperΨDro 21:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around and found references to Tollerton specifically that use the comma (link) and don't use the comma (link - in the references), so yeah you're right, either should be fine. I just asked because I hadn't seen it with a comma before. If there's no hard rule it's perfectly fine to stick with it in what you work on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Dorfopterus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dorfopterus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ichthyovenator -- Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't mean to be a pest, but it's been a week since my last request, so I have to contact you once more about this. Reodorant (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Karadjovalides is not a turkish word, and in turkey they are named Karacaovalilar, or karacaova, not Karadjovalides. Karadjovalides is the hellenized turkish word for Karacaovalilar.
Yes Nalanidil, that's why I added Turkish-language templates (I mean this text: "Turkish: Karacaovalılar"). Karadjovalides is used in a few English websites however so we shouldn't remove this word from English Wikipedia. SuperΨDro 16:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, maybe in the english use like: Karadjaovalilar in english form? But you have absolutly more knlowledge about this Topics, as myself. --Nalanidil (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe we should use it as an English form of Karacaovalılar. SuperΨDro 17:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would be better, I have another question I found out in the Dobruja there are still live a minority of Muslim Romani people, maybe you have more knlowledge about them. Should be made an own page of them like turks and tatars in romania or introduced in the artile of romani in romania?
I don't really know anything about them, but no, they shouldn't be made a new article, I doubt it'd be notable enough. I would include Muslim Roma on the article Romani people in Romania. SuperΨDro 12:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are editing about Romanian pages, so pay attention here to this page [[18]] where they want to change something that is written in the source, but I have corrected it for now. Bye93.136.75.221 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 93.136.75.221, thanks for the notice. I was planning to leave a message at the talk page of the article to show the user what the source says, but I see the citation itself includes a quote where it's clearly stated that Romanians are the ones mentioned. I believe the user will realize this after having gotten reverted, but if you are reverted back, revert again and tell them to look at the quote of the citation, I think that'd be enough. SuperΨDro 19:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed your interest for Circassians. I've been curious as to why ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact 11:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adigabrek. Sometimes I find an ethnic group interesting for no particular reason. In the Caucasus, this happens to me especially with the Abkhazians, Armenians, Circassians and Georgians. Thus, sometimes I read some articles about them (history, language, etc.) and edit them a bit. That has been more intense with the Circassians lately. I was also way more interested to them when I found out they had been in modern Romania, so I created a page for that. And that's it, pretty much. I find Circassian history and their modern politics and repatriation efforts very interesting and wish them sucess in the latter ones. SuperΨDro 16:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, in one of your edits, you mentioned that the page "Circassians in Bulgaria" could be created. Can you do it? Since you have the materials. Thanks. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact 19:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Adigabrek, I don't actually have many sources about the Circassians in Bulgaria, all sources I used for the article Circassians in Romania are Romanian and focused in Romania, except for one Russian source that is just a census about the Moldavian SSR. What made me suggest that a page about it could be created was the large amount of hidden info (I mean between this stuff: <!-- -->) that there's about the Circassians in Bulgaria at Circassian genocide (specially at the Balkans section). I can accept to do a collaboration with you if you wish but I don't feel like writing the page alone myself. SuperΨDro 20:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My family were actually Circassians in Bulgaria before they came to Turkey in probably around 1890s. Also I am trying to add every possible diaspora to Wikipedia. I'll try to create the page, and if you feel like adding anything go ahead. Thanks. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact 20:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I thought all had been expelled after the 1878 treaty. Sure thing, here are a few sources that could help you that I just found: [19][20]. I might use them myself in the article. SuperΨDro 20:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might be in 1878 as well, 1890s was just a poor estimate in my head. All I know is with the 1864 exile we first came to Bulgaria. Anyways, the page has been created in Circassians in Bulgaria. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact 20:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll take a look at it tomorrow. SuperΨDro 20:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Lunjina Serbian–Aromanian Association logo.jpg[edit]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Lunjina Serbian–Aromanian Association logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Here's the genetic results. It was done by a Hungarian chief physician and geneticist. CsifoZsombor (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text doesn't say Székelys are a different ethnic group separate from Hungarians. It's not enough. SuperΨDro 13:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Super Dromaeosaurus
Here is the study of the University of Szeged: www2.sci.u-szeged.hu/fokozatok/PDF/Kovacsne_Csanyi_Bernadett/PhDertekezes_CsanyiB.pdf
(It's very long, but everything is written down as a matter of urgency.) --CsifoZsombor (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Hungarian and neither can most users here, so you'll need to quote specific parts of the text (ideally translated). Also please do this on Talk:Székelys as there are most likely more users concerned about this. By the way, genetic studies aren't everything that determine an ethnic group, you need sources specifically stating that Székelys are not Hungarians. SuperΨDro 22:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Super DromaeosaurusThe Székelys are distinguished from the Hungarians. They have a separate culture, a folk name, a separate writing (Székely notation), separate folklore, dialect and symbols. And in the Principality of Transylvania, it was one of the nations of the three commonwealths. In Transylvania, they had special autonomy until 1869. They enjoyed a lot of rights in Hungary because they were the border guards. The two genetic tests prove that there is a difference between the two peoples.--CsifoZsombor (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)CsifoZsombor[reply]
User:Super Dromaeosaurus
He asked me to send evidence. The "Székelyföldért Társaság" and the Szekler National Council also stated that szeklers are a Hungarian ethnic group.
I'm Székely, too, and we don't think we're a subgroup at all.
Wrongly presenting Arvanites as minority in Greece.[edit]
Hi, I have seen that in your latest edits you are trying to present Arvanites as an Albanian minority in Greece. Of course I do not disagree with the fact that they are of Albanian origin but, presenting them as Albanian minority in Greece is a tantamount endorsement of Albanian POV and if you persist I will have to request WP:AE. Thanks for the cooperation. Othon I (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Othon I. I apologize if I've made an ignorant edit, I am not knowledgable on this topic or on how is it handled in Wikipedia. But please, be careful with calling edits of other users "hijacking" or with WP:CANVASSING, and calm down, I am not on an anti-Greek crusade, nor I am interested in getting involved on a discussion at WP:AE for this. Regards. SuperΨDro 19:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to imply that nor I am WP:CANVASSING, I just hurried things up in order to attempt to extinguish a fire before it starts burning. I hope that you understand that and If I wanted to canvass I could do it offline and of course, I am not accusing you of something. Best Othon I (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, sorry for my accusation, I also didn't imply that you are accussing me of the things I said. It is better to keep the editing without unnecessary escalation like this. SuperΨDro 19:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infact the vandalism had added two words to the file link (turning it red) and deleted the first paragraph of the lead. -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for restoring the image. SuperΨDro 13:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just a quick note to let you know that I copied the article on Dacianism in my sandbox and will start working on a draft in the days to come. It took much longer than I was planning, I got caught up. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear. I'll be looking forward to its publication. SuperΨDro 13:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you don't mind, I'll be using the template in your user page to keep mine organized. Is that okay? Sincerely, AdigabrekTalk 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adigabrek, of course you can! No need to ask, I don't mind it. SuperΨDro 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes. Sincerely, AdigabrekTalk 18:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to find out articles you have created? Because I'm not sure if I remember them all. Sincerely, AdigabrekTalk 18:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is, [21], although I personally never used it. I listed the articles I created from the very start, I like seeing them from time to time. By the way, just so you know, you can change the color of the userpage background or of the border of the template (at <div style="padding:0.2em; border:1px solid cadetred; background-color:black; border-radius:10px"> or at <nowiki><div style="background: #B0C4DE; overflow: auto; border-radius:8px">) so it doesn't have to be exactly to that of mine. You can also remove the borders if you wish or make the corners of the border sharper or more circular if you wish. You can also increase its width and more stuff, it's been a long time since I changed that for the last time and I don't remember well anymore, but there's a lot you can do. If you want to see lots of colors with their codes, I suggest visiting the Spanish Wikipedia and its articles on colors (e.g. Green). SuperΨDro 18:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll look more into it. Sincerely, AdigabrekTalk 20:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I do not know where another user found these figures. It appears that Stiri Oficiale posted those figures several minutes after that edit was made, while the Ministerului Afacerilor Interne posted those same figures at a later time. Do you know if there is an alternative source that can be used? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Not really, I am not knowledgable on this. I haven't edited COVID-19 pages in a long time. You could ask the user in their talk page. SuperΨDro 18:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I could ask the user, but he has never replied to any message that others have left on his talk page. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see... Well, I don't know what sources is the user using anyway, so I can only advise you to try. SuperΨDro 07:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Super Dromaeosaurus. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! SuperΨDro 08:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I don't have time for arguments, let's talk about it. The Szekler anthem was created in 1921 by György Csanády and Kálmán Mihalik, and Csanády's original poem was only 8 lines. This is the official version. In 2002, a Hungarian poet wrote 10-20 lines for him, which is not used by the Szeklers or anyone else. The Szekler National Council has officially adopted only 8 lines.
Source: http://www.farkaslaka.eu/176~hu~szekely_himnusz.html
Note: There are plenty of amateur sites that add Papp's poem, but it doesn't matter, it's unofficial. CsifoZsombor (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the argument at one place, on here. SuperΨDro 18:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can you check the situation in this article? I think we really need a third opinion to edit an edit war. You might want to check User talk:Каракорум#Please use English in edit summaries first. This user has been making nationalist edits and calling people who revert his edits as his "opponents". Now they reverted my and other editors' edits at attempting to fix that horrible nationalist POV article calling them "strange edits", and when I undid this act of vandalism it seems they have blamed me for WP:EDITWAR and WP:BATTLEGROUND, which I say is ironic since that's exactly what they have been doing. I think we need a third opinion to avoid an edit war, so can you check that? AdigabrekTalk 16:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adigabrek, to be honest with you I don't feel like getting in other people's arguments, the ones I get myself involved in are already tiring enough. The first step should have been to discuss with the user on the article's talk page, and if that fails, you could go here.
Thanks, I wrote to a bunch of people and I hope that's sorted. I'm honestly very surprised how they are still not blocked for the things they have said/done. AdigabrekTalk 18:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the gesture you made on this page was pure nonsense, and although I understand that the content on the page was poor, you could've made the page earlier and take credit for the idea.
Signed, An honest person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (G)jabz (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that I already had a draft on Word that I had created long ago and that I planned to publish just the day after you made the page (sounds convenient, but it's the truth). I've got a few other pages on Word that I've been lazy to finish yet but that are basically over 80% complete, and it would unmotivate me if they were created before. Again, as I stated, I would have never done this if the page was something you had worked on yourself and which had took some time, that'd just be an insult to the work of anyone, but the page was a simple copypaste from the Aromanians page with an unreliable source that anyway didn't cite anything other than the name of the organization Trã Armãnami. I kind of didn't want to "give up" autorship over such an act. It's very easy to copypaste and make a new page and leave it there. SuperΨDro 06:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 November 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Nicolae Ciucă, which you created and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unjustified reverts under the History of the Families of Frashër[edit]
Hi, I've seen that one of the editors originally proposed that you take the issue to discussion to the talk page. That's definitively better than an edit war. By the way, here you used 4 sources to back your claims [22]. I can't access the first one, the second one refers to the Frashëri brothers (Abdyl, Naim and Sami), I also cannot access the third one and the fourth one only refers to the Frashëri brothers again. You are confusing the Frashëri brothers with the families of Frashër (which probably include the Frashëri brothers, or so I'd suppose). SuperΨDro 12:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the best option is to discuss it on the article's talk page [23]. You were anyway adding the info on the wrong place since you were placing it on the "History" section where the Frashëri brothers aren't mentioned. Abdyl, Naim and Sami are discussed on the section "The Dakollari or Dulellari family". That would be the place where this info belongs. SuperΨDro 14:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evangelos and Kostantinos Zappas clearly had an Aromanian or partial Aromanian ancestry[edit]
These two pages should be watched because an user started an edit war simply because a DRN rule of 6 years ago which didn't present any sources backing the aromanian claim says so. The sources presented are clear, the Zappas had at least a partial Aromanian ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:6469:985D:8CF4:CE19:EEFC:31F5 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Antonescu of albanian origin on Romanian wikipedia?[edit]
My competence on Romanian, specially written, is limited, so I'd prefer someone else to deal with this. You can comment this on the talk page on Antonescu's article on Romanian Wikipedia [24]. Note that I will not participate in the discussion. SuperΨDro 18:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Treker, how about "Antonia (daugher of Marcus Antonius the orator)" or "Antonia (daugher of orator Marcus Antonius)"? I particularly like the latter. A title like "(kidnapped by pirates)" is not something I've seen often in Wikipedia. SuperΨDro 13:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its an improvement, but I still think identifying her by what she's known for would be better since it is not actually certain that she was the daughter of the orator, she might have been his granddaughter.★Trekker (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't stated in the article. If I had known it was disputed whether she was his daughter or granddaughter, I wouldn't have tried to use kinship terms (and I can't really think of another way of titling the article, so I probably wouldn't have moved it). I apologize for the inconveniences but note that you didn't give a rationale for why "kidnapped by pirates" was probably the best option in neither the history of the page nor on its talk page. I've moved back the article. SuperΨDro 14:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I should have been more clear about the subjects history. I have been planing to expand on the article for a while now but havn't gotten to it yet.★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Ava Max, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per MOS:BLPLEAD, ethnicity does not go in the lede sentence. Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Aromanians in Greece, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 1996. Elizium23 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Romanians, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ichthyovenator -- Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
; see Talk:Dorfopterus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ichthyovenator -- Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
11:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
20:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
