User talk:Constantzeanu: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:25, 3 March 2008

Welcome!

Hello Constantzeanu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Shanel 05:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ronline for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ronline and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ronline . I have nominated Ronline to be Administrator for English Wikipedia. Let's vote for him! Bonaparte talk & contribs

De ce nu editezi pagina? Ai dreptul sa faci lucrul acesta! Bonaparte talk & contribs 21:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan language business

Hi Constantzeanu. Thank you for involing yourself at that article. And one "premptive" request. It is good if, as you did so far, you don't make too many big edits to that page too soon. Too many changes could ruin the fragile peace we have on that page. And one more request. It is good if you use an edit summary when you contribute, even for minor things, it helps us see what is changed and when. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esti tare! Tot inainte! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harta graiuri

Cred ca este corecta harta. Dar nu prea imi plac gaurile acelea. Oricum in zonele acelea chiar daca romanii sunt minoritari totusi ei exista acolo! Sau ungurii de acolo vorbesc sau cel putin incearca sa vorbeasca romana cu graiul respectiv (ardelenesc). Deci se poate extinde zona linistit si in acele gauri pentru ca si acolo se vorbeste graiul respectiv. Nu este o harta a etnicitatii ci a graiurilor, iar limba este vorbita nu numai de romani ci se de alte minoritati din zonele respective. De ex. un rrom va vorbi cu accent moldovenesc in Moldova si cu accent ardelenesc in Transilvania. In rest e OK. Continua munca si vei ajunge administrator. Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our forum

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hai si voteaza ca avem nevoie de el. Multumesc frumos. Oricand ai nevoie de ajutor sa-mi spui. Ar fi bine daca mai ai ceva prieteni sa-i convingi sa-l ajutam pe alex.-- Bonaparte talk & contribs 20:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Uau ce frumos ai spus! Multumesc. Nici eu nu puteam spune asa bine :) -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Corect ce spui, :) numai acum am citit dupa ce m-am ocupat de pagina! dupa 23 de zile Bonaparte is back! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 22:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unitate

Constănţeanu, vreau din tot sufletul să existe unitate între noi, crede-mă. Problema e că Bonaparte nu face decît să-şi verse veninul pe Node, şi încurcă tot locul. Nu se poate purta o discuţie în felul ăsta. Singurul lucru bun pe care îl pot vedea la Bonaparte este că într-un final o să ajungă să îl scoată din sărite pe Node, iar acesta să facă ceva neregulamentar pe Wikipedia, ceea ce i-ar putea atrage suspendarea. Dar eu nu m-aş baza pe asta, fiindcă Node este incredibil de calm şi bine documentat în ce priveşte regulamentele.

Din felul cum vorbeşti despre Node, că e "pus la punct cu propaganda anti-Romaneasca" mă faci să cred că şi tu te crezi aici în război. Mi-e foarte clar că ai mult mai multe cunoştinţe şi mai multă minte decît să zicem Bonaparte, dar atitudinea asta uşor războinică nu e sănătoasă. Te rog fii calm.

De asemenea, te rog fii obiectiv. Nu este adevărat că românii au dreptate iar ceilalţi greşesc. Moldovenii au motive serioase să îşi numească limba moldovenească şi nu română. Pune-te în locul lor. Dar de ce vorbesc eu de ei, uită-te la românii noştri care fug de România. Dacă citeşti interviul lui Vasile Stati sau mulţimea de atitudini care se iau în Moldova vizavi de România o să înţelegi. Ei de voie de nevoie se înţeleg binişor cu ruşii, fiindcă au fost nevoiţi, de-a lungul istoriei. Dacă ajung să facă parte din România relaţiile cu ruşii se strică urît, şi ce obţin în schimb? Mai nimic. Stati se referă la dorinţele expansioniste ale României, şi în primul rînd se teme de extremiştii din PRM.

De acord că lingvistic toată povestea e o glumă puerilă. Dar viaţa nu e numai lingvistica. --AdiJapan 06:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Moldovan language

Thank you for bringing a more reasoned approach to Moldovan language (talk · history · watch). I notice that you have made four reverts of the article in the last twenty-four hours. Although the reverts have not all been identical, they have included revert back to the phrase name of the state language in the lead paragraph. This could be construed as blockable under WP:3RR. As you are new here, I have not blocked you. However, I did block Node ue for twenty-four hours for exactly the same kind of thing, and, to be fair, will block you if you continue to revert within this period. The reason for such a block is not a punishment, but a way of preventing revert wars. --Gareth Hughes 10:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stai linistit :) Bonaparte e cu ochii pe ei. Sa nu cumva sa lasi sa te blocheze. Avem rabdare.-- Bonaparte talk 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corect! -- Bonaparte talk 18:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Moldovan" Wikipedia

Constanteanu,

I'd actually forgotten this: there is no mention of the name of the language at mo.wiki. Go there and you will see -- no official page there says anything about "Moldovan". For this reason, I think changing the "name" is really a moot point, since it doesn't talk about it at all. --Node 21:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says молдовеняскэ. But how is "молдовеняскэ" ambiguous? It's like if I write "Енглыш" -- it seems clear that the target of the link would be English language written in Cyrillic. And what you said about English written in Arabic -- no, no matter what script you use, the language is the same. Ultimately, both scripts represent the same underlying sounds and structures. How is it possible that a document which was "Moldovan" in 1972 suddenly changed the language it has in it in 1989, even though nobody made any changes to the document?? It's not. That document is still written in Moldovan. Just because Latin is the official alphabet of Moldova does not mean anything written in Cyrillic is not Moldovan. Besides, I'm not sure why I'm being lectured about this by you. I have gotten positive feedback from real Moldovans, born and raised in Moldova, about this Wikipedia. Even the people who complain don't generally mention that we can't call the language Moldovan --Node 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong! Moldovan does not exist only in the mind of sovietic politicians. -- Bonaparte talk 17:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrogea

Ai facut o treaba foarte buna! Ai adus multe contributii valoroase. Sa stii ca nu da impresia ca sunt trei zone distincte. Maybe you can make also a detail image only with Dobrogea. In rest te felicit. Bonaparte talk 18:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am realizat si ultimele editari. Sa-mi trimiti mail ok?-- Bonaparte talk 21:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Il ceri te rog de la Alex: alexander_the_backhander@yahoo.com -- Bonaparte talk 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nu trebuia sa dai revert la versiunea mea http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=30642782&oldid=30642567 -- Bonaparte talk 22:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mai demult [1] ai adaugat niste date la articolul Dobrogea . Ai putea sa pui sursele la Dobruja#Sources and references, daca se poate sub acelasi format ca cele deja existente (autor, titlu, editura, loc aparitie, an aparitie, isbn daca are)? Anonimu 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

multumesc ptr efort. in ceea ce priveste hartile.. depinde. cele care reprezinta zone din ucraina sunt dupa o harta sovietica, care din cate stiu nu se (mai) afla pe web. Zonele din romania (i.e. sudul bucovine), sunt alcatuite de mine, pe baza datelor de la ultimul recensamat (datele la nivelul comunelor, pot fi gasite la [2] si la [http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?regiune_id=1), limitele comunelor fiind preluate de pe un site de internet. cat priveste hartile care nu reprezinta etniile, ele sunt fie alcatuite pe baza unor harti aflate pe internet sau in atlasuri tiparite in romania, sau construite de mine pe baza descrierii frontierelor din diferite tratate si conventii, aplicate asupra unor harti topografice la scara destul de mare ale acestei zone, pubicate la inceputul secolului 20. uneori, unele detalii geografice pentru hartile care se refera la prezent (rauri, lacuri, tarmuri, frontierele in zone de campie) sunt alcatuite pe baza imaginilor din satelit, care pot fi obtinute prin cel putin 2 programe gratuite de pe internet Anonimu 08:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

I checked out both versions they are almost identical except for a few word changes. Any specific reason that you want a revert that far back? KnowledgeOf Self | talk 23:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you take this up with an admin they would know the proper procedure: Wikipedia:List of administrators have a look there. Until then I hope that the current version can stand until the proper personal can address this. I am sorry if this is causing a lot of trouble. But I really don't know how to proceed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention instead of just reverting it yourself edit wars = bad :-D. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 23:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

traducere

Multam' fain de traducere. Ai primit adresa mea de email? -- Bonaparte talk 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A venit si Bogdan inapoi. Asta e un geniu. O sa-l vezi in actiune :) Asta ii inchide pliscu la copchilu' -- Bonaparte talk 19:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vot impotriva lui Node

Hei! Fii pe faza! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language#Vote_for_limiting_user.27s_Node_ue_ability_to_edit_the_article_about_Moldovan_language -- Bonaparte talk 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salut! -- Bonaparte talk 20:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

La Multi Ani!

Bonaparte talk 21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ethnic groups

Look, I see what you are trying to say and maybe you are honest that you think that there is no difference between us and Moldovans but from my experience this does not mean much if you still want to keep the Romanian-Moldovan artificial divide. I propose that we come with a formulae that satisfies both the official census of Ukraine in 2001 but also the truth. We can mention that Romanian-speakers represent 19.8% of the population, which the census devided in 12.2% and 7.6% respectively. Constantzeanu 08:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a good solution.This will not miss statistics from Census and satisfy your side also.--Bryndza 13:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantzeanu. I just dropped by to say that I appreciate the civil discussion we are having even though we do not yet agree. While some users can't stand those who disagree with them, and even resort to name calling, I am pleased to see the collegiate editors joining the discussion. I am sure that sooner or later we will find some mutually agreeable way to deal with census data. That is, unless, the radical editors would make it impossible. Feel free to contact me at my talk, by email or at the article's talk regarding the topics under discussion. Regards, --Irpen 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i uploaded the ethnic map of bugeac. I kept the "moldovan" label because that was my source, and even if i think that there's no difference between romanian and moldovan, i think that if i would put a "romanian" label, that would be original research. Anonimu 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harta

In legatura cu harta demografica a Bucovinei de Nord, nu am sters-o si nici nu am vreo intentie sa o sterg. --Vasile 23:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bcgethnic1980a.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bcgethnic1980a.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 08:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eshti un tradator, boule! Ii pupi pe ruteni in cur ca o curva.Duca 18:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multumesc!

Multumesc pentru premiu! Am adaugat numele tau pe premiu... --Candide, or Optimism 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matei

Cum zic Italienii la numele Matei? Incerc sa gasesc info despre un cronicar Italian... --Candide, or Optimism 00:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Romanian

From my talk page: I think the first section on my talk page here mentions it. Basically I have vistied Romania 6 or 7 times for a total of 17 months (11 months all at once), and I studied it while in the US between. I have found that my romanian is not especially useful on wikipedia because I don't write really professional looking english and never wrote much Romanian at all so even doing translation work is hard. This is espically true for articles that write in more formal acedemic Romanian which does some ..... fun thigns with the verb tenses and other grammar all having subtel nuance that I would be afraid of mistranslating. I have only spoken ROmanian with someone else that knows Romanian twice since 1999 and my vocabulary is falling away at an alarming rate. I was going to visit Romana again this May but it looks to have fallen through. I actually have some plans of trying to revive my romanian some perhaps finding some Romanians in my area or just making a more consistent effort to download the news (audio format) and listen to it every day. Dalf | Talk 06:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That part of it is fun. But it is frustrating now because I use to speak it well enough to pass myself of as being from Sibiu, now I imagine I would be luck to carry on a decent conversation. Though we will see how I am doing in a few months if I actually manage to study some. Also I had taken an informal class at the university before the 11 month course and had at that time spent a few sumemrs in Romania so I had the benifit of being .... well ... no quite conversational but I would comunicate at the point that I arrived for the exchagne program and one of my hosts did not really know english, so I had a good situation for learning. Dalf | Talk 06:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

I took a few days off, as I am still fuming over the POV hijacking of another page I watch, so it was a lovely surprise to come back and see the barnstar. Thanks again. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template/apologies

I apologize, it was a mistake. Deletion was done without much thought. I very regret that my fight against Bonaparte forever put a sticker of anti-Romanianist on me. But I can live with it.

Still, I challenge you to find anything in my edits (besides reverts of trolls) what makes you conclude that I am anti-romanian. mikka (t) 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look to my contributions in Romanian topics.

May be you understand that I am not enemy of Romania. I happen to have a different kind of knowledge, a hisory that is little known. mikka (t) 18:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Romania Graiuri-a.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Romania Graiuri-a.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 12:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, you can delete that image.Constantzeanu 15:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bukovina population

In 1880 there were cca. 500,000 people there. So, starting from 86,000 this would mean a growth of 580%. This sound unlikely for me. I thin that the 86,000 figure only is for the Southern part, namely Suceava. Anyway, the 86% or what percentage of Romanians is likely there, but not in the whole province. Erdelyiek 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erdelyiek 580% sounds unlikely for natural growth, but taking in consideration the colonization encouraged by the Austrian authorities (who wanted it as heterogenous as possible, in order to be easier to rule), it isn't as unlikely. bogdan 11:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. I'm quite offended that you've occused me of vandalism -- have I occused you of vandalism? No.

Besides, did you discuss most of the changes you made to Moldovan language recently? No, you didn't. --Node 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovans

Please explain the reasons of your reersal in the Talk:Moldovans. Your edit comment was very unclear: what kind of POV were you speaking? The article clearly says that they are of Romanian ethnicity. mikka (t) 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to the anon vandal, of course. While I find many of your edits highly dubious, you do stay within bounds of reason. Especially if I pretend not to understand Romanian and forget about those things.

Could you also explain why you inserted these lines? "...are supposed to "officially" comprise..." - not only was that statement totally un-encyclopedic, it is also redundant, because the phrase "officially comprise" already casts doubt upon the whole thing. --Illythr 21:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Romania_Graiuri-a.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Romania_Graiuri-a.JPG. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 08:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Romania_Graiuri-mod.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Romania_Graiuri-mod.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 08:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

Hi,

Can I ask you to provide a source for the edit you made here? I don't doubt your good faith, it's just that this is a very specific list of GDP figures adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity, and it's easy to confuse these with for example, GNP figures, or non-PPP GDP figures. Thanks!Demiurge 17:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful !

Bai, fi atent, ca dobitocii astia vor sa ne stearga tag-urile care spun ca suntem in favoarea unificarii Romania-Moldova, pentru ca vasazaica sunt "polemice si inflamatorii" ! Gimme a friggin' break ! Sa nu cumva sa-i lasi sa-ti modifice pagina, daca it-i vor scoate elemente din, ea, sa le pui la loc. Am sa transmit mesajul si la ceilalti Romani. Bafta. -Voievod 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uite ce trebuie sa faci. Baga asta in userbox:

This user supports the reunification of Romania and Moldova.

Trimite acest mesaj celor interesati. -Voievod 20:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User reunification romania moldova

Hi Constantzeanu,

Jimbo has requested the these type of userboxes be subst'ed and deleted. All of them have, except this one. --Khoikhoi 08:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to explain to you, they have all been deleted, even the ones about New York and stuff. --Khoikhoi 08:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the independence/reunification ones. Sorry if I wasn't previously clearer. --Khoikhoi 08:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tibet one was deleted and subst'ed. Please show me the unionist one. --Khoikhoi 08:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Israel/Palestine templates were deleted. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Khoikhoi 08:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were all supposed to get deleted. See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics. --Khoikhoi 08:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Userboxes. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing flags

Please do not cross flags on your user page. This may offend others and is even considered a crime in many countries. I am sure you are able to express your valuable opinion in a respectful way. Imagine someone crossed the flag of your country. ROGNNTUDJUU! 21:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanii din Canada

salut Constantzean! Despre datele pe care mi le-ai cerut leam gasit pe nishte site, o sa tzi le caut maine daca le vrei, dar sunt estimari neoficiale, asha ca nici mie nu mi se pare f corect sa le pun acolo, dar avand in vedere ca daca mergem de exemplu la articolul Romanians, vei vedea ca in Canada numarul ne-oficial al etnicilor romani este estimat pe la 400.000 . Shi tu ieshti din Montreal? NorbertArthur 10 Martie 2006

Da, aici sa shtii ca itzi dau dreptate ca are trebui sa lasam datele oficiale. Da' pe site'ul scria mare: Greater Montreal Area. Dupa mine asta ar insemna Insula Montreal, Laval, Longueuil, Chateauguay si toate astealalte. Nici eu nu prea cred ca chiar daca punem capa la cap toate cifrele etnicilor romani la un loc, nu cred ca da peste 60,000. Printre noi aici s-ar zici ca in Montreal ar fii in jur de 40.000-30.000 de romani. Tu ce crezi de asta? Apropo, ieshti de mult in Montreal? In ce cartier stai? Cred ca e mishto la McGill, mai ales ca e in engleza, nu in chebecoaza asta! NorbertArthur 10 Martie 2006

Eu sunt student, daca pot sa spun asa, la Aviatzie in Mirabel. Am facut primii doi ani de aviatzie in RO,dupa aia venit aici cu viza de lucru pt Olympic Airlines shi intre timp miam gasit Academia asta unde pot sa imi termin shcoala, asha ca am decis sa raman aici definitiv. Tu ieshti de mult timp aici? NorbertArthur] 11 martie 2006

Asta e partea proasta ca nu imi recunosc decat liceul aviatic, dar cei 2 ani au spus ca chiar daca mi-ar fi fost recunoscuţi, piloţii nu au voie sa sara ani de şcoala, asha ca a trebuit sa incept totul de la inceput, dar e OK pt ca este mult mai complex decat în RO. Tu unde ai stat înainte de a veni în Montreal? NorbertArthur 12 Martie 2006

Primar Roxboro

Ala pe care l-ai adaugat la "Famous Romanian-Canadians", Adrain Micu, mai e ince primar acolo?

Aha, pai mersi mult atunci. Apropo, ce zici de articolul care l-am facut ? NorbertArthur 28 Martie 2006

Romanians

Salut. Te-am contactat pt avem serioase probleme la articolul wikipedian despre Romanians. Dupa cum vezi, user-ii Jayig si administratorul SlimVirgin au pus cele mai joase cifre posibile. Cand am incercat sa intervin, punand numerele adevarate, am fost blocat pt "vanadalism", asa trebuie ca toti wikipedistii Romani sa facem ceva. Daca vrei sa te alaturi, da-mi un email sau scrie pe pagina talk Romanians. Numai bine, NorbertArthur 2 Aprilie 2006 Si eu cred ca sunt peste 34 milioana romani. --Chisinau 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Am vazut in manualul de geogra pentru clasa 7-8. De fapt acolo scrie 34-36 milioane. --Chisinau 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Salut Constanteanu, uite-te ce face khoikhoi acela te rog si pune-l la punct cumva. --Chisinau 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut! Stai putin ca nu am inteles o chestie: tu esti pro sau contra cifrelor puse acolo? Eu cred ca in Montreal is vreo 30,000 de Romani. Am citit ca in '87 erau 5,000, si cati au mai venit de atunci... Explica-mi te rog la ce te-ai referit ca nu am inteles. Numai bine, NorbertArthur 15 Aprilie 2006

Opriti-l cumva pe coicoiul ala si pe irpen. poate stergeti si aia de pagina mea ca alfel ma blocheaza. --Chisinau 20:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you. However, I am a ciocoi only in opposition to whitetrash. Dahn 22:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that was not directed at me. But then, Chisinau should tell us who he was refering to. In any case, I don't mean to trouble the cabal. You people go ahead, because I am growing tired of reverting bias after bias from a well-organized network of Bonapartes. Dahn 22:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, you'll never have to be subject to the same abuse from Romanian nationalists as me. I tend to be careful, now. If I have been abusive towards you, I'm sorry. The fact is that I had explained ad nauseam why Irpen was right and your points were wrong on the Moldova page. Your edits would have convinced that you just do not care. Whether that makes you part of the cabal I do not know. But, again, do whatever. Dahn 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again. Yes, I am. Dahn 23:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantzeanu, we've met before and I am under an impression that you are a reasonable person. Please don't let Bonny and his socks radicalize you and turn you into his revert war proxy.

Now, to the issue. Please don't claim that when people who restore the official census results refuse to talk. This has been talked about at length. One thing is to say that literary Moldavian and Romanian languages is one and the same thing. No one seriously argues against that. It is a totally different thing to provide to the Wikipedia readers the information which instead of factual census results is instead the result of the census numbers being processes by this or that Wikipedia user. You are free to provide any valid and referenced criticism to census results and I said so earlier here. Having said that, I will restore the census data in the articles. Please don't accuse me in refusal to talk. --Irpen 00:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hai mai nu fii chiar asa pesimist. Armenii mai multi ca si noi? Nu cred deloc. In Montreal sunt mai multe magazine si restaurante romanesti. Burret, Transilvania, Iosia, BBRo... Restaurante: Boite-a-lunch, Rotunda, Ize... Cat despre ce ai citit tu, poate erau in '80 6600 de Romani, nu in 2000. Nu cred ca sunt mai putini de 30,000. vreau sa spun ca suntem printre cele 20 de comunitati cele mai numeroase din Canada, asa ca nu suntem chiar asa de putini cum crezi tu. Pana si la amaratu ala de census care l-am avut in 2001 au fost 131,000 de Romani, cifra pe care eu nu prea o cred, prea mica, asa ca unde crezi ca sunt toti concentrati? In Yukon sau Nunavut? Sunt aici, Montreal si Toronto. Apropo, avem si noi Place de la Roumanie, Consulat, Centru si festivitati culturale, ceea ce nu fiecare comunitate de doi lei cum crezi tu ca sunt Romanii are. Salutari, NorbertArthur 15 Aprilie 2006

A da, si am uitat sa iti spun ca sunt si 4 scoli in limba romana si 6 biserci romanesti, 5 Ortodoxe si una Romano-Catolica. Nu cred ca o comunitate de 6,000 de oameni are asa ceva.

NorbertArthur 15 April 2006

Not So Minor Edits...

In your last edits on the Moldova article, you have marked the changes as a minor edit. This is not right. A minor edit generally implies trivial changes only, such as typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes and rearranging of text without changing any content. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it involves one word. The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because you may decide to ignore minor edits when viewing recent changes; logged-in users can even set their preferences to not display them. No one wants to be fooled into ignoring a significant change to an article simply because it was marked "minor." So remember to consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option.--Asterion 11:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Chişinău

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violation the three-revert rule, which states that no editor may make more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut!

I replied here. —Khoikhoi 17:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovans#Voting De ce nu votezi? --193.109.91.134 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantzeanu, what's so hard about adding comments below the census results? It's not Wikipedia's job to switch around the census to our liking. I'm sorry, but the more and more Bonaparte trolls, the more and more I'm going to take the opposite of his views because I'm so disgusted by him. —Khoikhoi 18:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should loved him. He is your king after all. 141.14.139.166 19:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[3] made on June 4 2006 (UTC) to Moldovans

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas

[Copied]
What happened with him? Why did he get blocked? For posting a picture of two kangaroos?Dapiks 23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[End Copied]

I don't really know any more than can be discerned by reading User talk:Anittas. I have been trying to get that page unprotected so that there is at least a place to discuss this. But as for the kangaroos thing, he didn't just post to it, he linked to it very inappropriately. - Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Y are blocked for persistent incivility. Cool down. `'mikka (t) 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit that image and save it? Have you seen that Bucharest has almost double numbers as other cities. --Brasoveanul 06:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un top manager care munceste in Romania ajunge sa castige peste 2,6 milioane lei noi (750.000 euro) pe an, adica peste 200.000 lei noi (62.500 euro) pe luna. La polul opus se afla salariatii din industria de prelucrare a lemnului, platiti cu doar 3,22 lei noi pe ora, al caror salariul mediu nu depaseste 500 lei noi, potrivit datelor Institutului National de Statistica. Bucurestenii vor fi cei mai bine platiti romani si in urmatorii doi ani, cand salariul mediu net platit in Capitala va creste de la 1.001,8 lei noi in 2006 la 1.212,2 lei noi in 2008. --Brasoveanul 06:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you been blocked? --Brasoveanul 08:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second block for incivility

Y are blocked again for persisitent conscious, incivility in Talk:Moldovans namely, the expression "sorry to distrub the Neo-Stalinist Commie camp" and like are inadmissible; you have been repeatedly warned to watch your language. You are hurting yourself. Your inflammatory introductions effectively kill the possibility for people to understand and respect your point of view. `'mikka (t) 00:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you also block this user that said: "He is a pro-Soviet Russian - we need editors like him. We have too many Romanian users, but not enough pro-Soviet Russians. " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnittas&diff=58567300&oldid=58567096 ?? --Brasoveanul 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikakalai, this are very "inflammatory introductions" that "effectively kill the possibility for people to understand and respect your point of view". using your own definition, just to formulate like that. --Brasoveanul 12:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked him? You should be ashamed to support such a russian bolshevism. I and others don't agree with you and you should go and read some history boy. --Brasoveanul 05:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your systematic block of Romanian editors, give that:

you participate in the editing process by opposing the positions of Constantzeanu
you never block User:Node_ue, even when his transgressions of the rules are as serious as those of Constantzeanu. Dpotop 12:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also blocked others, but the most intriguing part is that beside the fact that he applies this systematic block to Romanians he applies something similar to all his opponents of his unilateral mode of thinking.--Brasoveanul 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer is not Romanian; he is a pro-Soviet Russian. This proves that Mikkalai is acting impartially. Vlachos 12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer is another opponent of Mikka's unilateral mode of thinking. That's why he got blocked. But Mikka's systematic block on Romanians is shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Mikkalai --Brasoveanul 12:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - Mikkalai is one of Wikipedia's most neutral editors. That's why he is an admin (despite what they say <removed link to attack site>). Vlachos 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral you say? Then why he blocked his opponents? He shouldn't do that. However, you are just a vandal that vandalises pages.--Brasoveanul 12:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not, Mikkalai is my role model. You on the other hand, are a sockpuppet of a banned user. Vlachos 12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Şcoli Românieşti din Montreal

Salut. Cred că îţi mai aminteşti de mine. Am făcut o wikipauză şi de aia nu te-am mai contactat. Ţi-am zis că sunt vreo 40 000 de români aici şi că este o şcoala românească pe care ai vrea să o vizitezi. Uite adresa: ŞCOALA DE LIMBĂ ŞI CULTURĂ ROMÂNEASCĂ MIHAI EMINESCU, 1538 Sherbrooke Ouest # 324 Montreal, Qc.H3G 1L5. Caută pe Google, deşi nu o să dea prea multe rezultate, căci s-a deaschis anul trecut. Mai sânt incă trei şcoli româneşti lângă bisericile române, pe Masson, Cristophe Colomb şi Maisonneuve Ouest. Dacă vrei adresele, contactează-mă. Salutări, Arthur 16 Iunie 2006

Mai nu stiu ce sa zic de linku asta. Un lucru e sigur, nu eu l-am pus acolo. Da, osa fac cum mi-ai zis tu. Da cum sa proclam votul acolo? Apropo, tu iesti blocat? Numai bine. Arthur 22 Iunie 2006

Pai din partea mea sa stiti ca aveti tot suportul si sprijinul, oricand aveti nevoie. Numai sa imi spuneti ce e de facut. Sunt 1000% impotriva asa-zisei limbi molovinesti sau a etnicilor moldoveni, subiecte despre care ma abtin sa fac comentarii ca mi-ar lua vreo 10 pagini. Nu stiu daca ai observat, dar ei, moldovanii, cand ajung aici in Canada incep sa isi bata joc de Romania si zic ca nu au nici o legatura etnica sau lingvistica cu Romanii si vb numai Rusa, chiar daca limba lor e de fapt romana. Inca o chestie care nu pricep nimica, ce e cu astai: user:Varul lui Bonaparte, il cunosti?, user:Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? sau user:Musatin. Nu inteleg nimic din asta. Oricum sa fim cu ochii pe ce se intampla. Salutari, Arthur 22 Iunie 2006

Hai că-i tare! Arthur, eu sunt Muşatin, ce anume nu ţi-e clar?! Intră pe la mine şi spune tatei ce ai pe suflet. Muşatin 31 ianuarie 2007

Wikipedia moldovenească

Sincer să fiu nu ştiu ce altceva pot să fac în limitele bunului simţ. Am convingerea că Wikipedia moldovenească nu are sens, dar nu văd ce-aş putea face pentru a demonstra asta.

De fapt cine şi pe ce baze va hotărî ţinerea sau blocarea proiectului? La meta [4] discuţia despre închiderea mo.wp a devenit lungă şi cu argumente (aparente) de ambele părţi. Deci un developer imparţial (dar neştiutor), care trebuie să aleagă între a desfiinţa proiectul sau de a-l lăsa, va decide evident că trebuie lăsat.

De aici rezultă că democraţia şi voturile nu funcţionează corect. Node i-a chemat pe ruşi să voteze şi acum voturile pentru menţinerea proiectului sînt mai numeroase, deşi ruşii habar nu au despre limba moldovenească. Ei au venit doar să lupte pentru supravieţuirea alfabetului chirilic.

Viitorul arată cam aşa: o Wikipedie moldovenească la care utilizatorul cu cele mai multe contribuţii (Node) va domni peste cîţiva rătăciţi nevorbitori de "moldovenească", însoţiţi de niscaiva vandali sporadici. Se vor copia şi translitera într-o veselie articolele româneşti, lucru care se poate face şi automat, dar fraierii o fac deocamdată de mînă. Pe de altă parte am convingerea că moldovenii vor continua să contribuie la ro.wp şi să ignore făcătura lui Node. Singura mea consolare.

Dacă ai vreo idee despre ce se poate face te rog să-mi spui. Deocamdată am consumat deja mult prea mult timp şi nervi în discuţii pe tema asta. — AdiJapan ☎ 02:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulţumesc pentru semnal. Am votat şi am sǎ le spun şi alţilor sǎ voteze la fel. Biruitorul 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votasem si eu. --Vlad|-> 07:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aşa este, trebuie să facem ceva. Dar nu mi se pare normal să imităm comportamentul lui Node. După mintea mea acolo rezultatul numeric al votului nu este relevant. De-asta nu mă străduiesc să aduc o armată de români care să echilibreze voturile. Şi aşa toată treaba seamănă prea mult cu un conflict politic. Cred că soluţia constă în a demonstra cît mai logic că păstrarea proiectului este inutilă. De altfel am şi încercat să fac asta, la secţiunea "What decision makers need to know". Suportul a fost pozitiv.

Problema mare este că încă nu există un regulament pentru desfiinţarea proiectelor. Şi atunci soluţia este să arătăm că nu există interes pentru mo.wp. N-ar trebui să fie greu: singurul om care vrea să menţină proiectul e Node, dar el nu e în stare să facă nimic bun. — AdiJapan ☎ 08:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note...

...but I don't speak Romanian unfortunately. My parents left the country when I was six months old for the USA. I used to be fluent in Hungarian (spoken only) but that is a distant memory now too from neglect and no oppurtunity to use it. rootology 23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan

Ti-am raspuns pe noticeboard, ca sa nu scriu de doua ori. :) Dpotop 16:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ti-am raspuns la mine pe talk page. Dpotop 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mo WP

Citeşte aici [5]. Sunt curios dacă va avea efect. Sper să îi convingă s-o închidă. Adriatikus 21:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanii

Salut! Cred ca ai vazut ce face pula ala de mikka la articolul Romanians. Trebuie neaparat se ne unim noi romanii si sa facem ceva pt asta bataie de joc in ultimul hal. Sper sa intelegi si sa reactionezi. Mersi mult! Bye! Arthur 14 Iulie 2006

Romanii

Salut! Cred ca ai vazut ce face pula ala de mikka la articolul Romanians. Trebuie neaparat se ne unim noi romanii si sa facem ceva pt asta bataie de joc in ultimul hal. Sper sa intelegi si sa reactionezi. Mersi mult! Bye! Arthur 14 Iulie 2006

About Wikipedia user William Mauco

Please comment and take any neccesary action if you think I`m right. Greier 17:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bugeac-etnic.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bugeac-etnic.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Milcov.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Vita_de_vie2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vita_de_vie2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugeac

Could you see my question at Image talk:Bugeac-etnic.png? - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanii

Salut! Ma bucur sa iti rescriu nu am mai vb de o gramada de timp. Iti multumesc enorm pt ce faci la articolul Romanians, ca macar tu iesti treaz si nu iesti ipocrit ca ceilalti. Da, ai perfecta dreptate. Sub nici o forma cifra Romanilor nu ar trebui sa coboare sub 28 de milioane. Eu am adunat o gramada de surse, mai ales pt Romanii de aici din Canada, Montreal, Toronto... In unele zice ca suntem chiar peste 30 de miloane incluzand Basarabia. Daca le vrei nu trebuie decat sa imi scrii si o sa ti le dau cu cea mai mare placere. Am si pt Montreal daca vrei, unde zice ca Romanii sunt 35-40 000 in zona metropolitana. O sa te sustin si eu cat pot. Sa imi raspunzi. Mersi mult inca o data. Salutari, Arthur 26 Octombrie 2006

Buna! Mersi de raspuns si ca vrei sa dezbatem tema asta. Deci, dupa mine, sub nici o forma nu ar trebui ca Romanii sa fie considerati Romanii numai daca detin cetatenia romana. E logic: asta ar insemna ca toti romanii care sunt nascuti in afara Romanie (Basarabia, Ucrainia, USA, Canada etc.) nu ar trebui sa fie romani. Tu mi-ai zis mai demult ca iesti aici in Canada de vreo 10 ani. Iesti nascut in Romania. Nu stiu daca ai cetatenia romana, dar sa zicem ca nu ai avea-o. Asta ar insemna dupa legea asta ca tu nu ai ai fi nici roman nici etnic roman. Deci ieste afara din subiect ca aplicam chestia asta. Adica nici o natie cu o comunitate mai mare, ma refer aici la Montreal, nu face asa. As vrea sa luam doua exmple clare: italienii si polonezi. Cei mai multi dintre iei is aici de 1 generatie, dar sunt totusi italieni. Nu-mi zice ca cei 250 000 de italieni sau 50 000 polonezi din Montreal sunt toti nascuti in Italia sau Polonia si au cetatenia tarii lor. De asemenea pt cei din USA. Nu imi vine a crede deloc ca cei 17 milioane de Italieni sau 10 milioane de Polonezi is toti nascuti in tara la iei si au toti cetatenia, sau chiar ca sunt de cel mult 1-2 generatii acolo. Nu vad de ce lucrul asta nu se aplica numai in cazul Romanilor? De ce noi facem always diferit fata de ceilalti? Sa-mi zici numai unde sa-ti dau sursele. Numai bine!

Nu, nu e nici vorba ca romanii in Montreal sa fie sub 25- 30 000 de mii. Daca vrei acuma iti si dau sursele de la Pagini Romanesti. Nu imi zice ca nu e o sursa credibila. Nu stiu de ce e asa de greu sa fie inteles pt ceilalti: o gramada de romanii, atat in USA cat si din Canada, nu sau declarat la recensamant din motive pure si simple. A da, m-ai intrebat tu odata de scoala romaneasca la Montreal, se numeste Mihai Eminescu, e pe Sherbrooke Ouest. Si despre ce mi-ai dat, hai sa fim seriosi. Deci in 2000 la Montreal erau 6500 Romani in 2000, si la census in 2001 erau 17 000 declarati. Asta ar insemna ca pe an la Montreal vin in jur de 11 000 Romani pe. Nici vorba ca Romana sa fie pe locul 15, santem una ditre comunitatile numeroase din Europa, dupa Englezi, Francezi, Irish etc. Nu stiu de ce nu vrei sa realizezi asta. Inteleg ca in '99 poate nu erau asa de multi cum sant acuma, dar totusi erau, si nu vad ce te face sa fii asa contra ca Romanii au ajuns o comunitate numeroasa in Montreal. Scuze daca am foast putin prea dur da chiar nu pot sa inteleg de ce crezi asa. Numai bine, Arthur 28 Octombrie 2006

Buna! Am primit un mesaj de pingstone cum ca vrea sa nu mai vb in romana, nu-l bag in seama, ca si eu cand am avut nevoie de iel nici nu ma bagat in seama... Deci, nu stiu ce sa zic. Dupa opinia mea personala este ca romanii sunt multi in Montreal, chiar daca in cifre oficial sunt mai putini. Putem foarte bine sa comparam situatia Romanilor din Montreal cu cea a Armenilor. Au aceeasi discutie, si defapt sunt mai multi decat in census. Evident ca noi santem mai multi ca iei, luand dupa datele oficiale. Da, despre census asta din 2006, nu prea am inteles o chestie. Pe hartia care am primit-o eu sa o completez nu scria nimic de nationalitate, numai de chestii depsre case si era intr-un loc limba materna optional. Nu stiu ce sa zic, chiar deloc. Dupa mine romanii sunt deja, inoficial, una dintre cele 14 communitati mari din Canada. Nu cred ca is chiar 400 000 de romani, dupa parerea mea ar fi 250 000 - 280 000 maximum. Iar in State, numarul format numai din Romani si din alte nationalitati din Romania lor este situat la 1 - 1.2 milion. Nu stiu daca tu erai in Romania in anii '90-98. Plecau romani cu miile intr-o zi din tara, unde sau dus? Eu m-am convins demult ca diaspora Romaneasca este f mare. Santem peste tot. Arthur 28 Octombrie 2006

Image tagging for Image:Ukraine-ethnic.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian diaspora

Foarte bine ai facut la Romanian Diaspora! Bravo! Singurul lucru de care "ma pot lega", este ca ar trebui a punem la TOTAL cifra oficiale (7 mil...) si (-) cifra estimata (9 mil si ceva). Maine o sa pun si eu sursele mele. Oricum inca odata bravo! Arthur 30 Octombire 2006

Salut

Salut Constantzeanu,

Am remarcat atentia si conntributiile tale la unele articole foarte interesante. Incerc sa incheg un text pentru articolul Northern Maramureş, si imi dau seama ca n-o pot face de unul singur. As vrea sa te intreb daca te intereseaza, si daca da, te rog atat cat poti sa ma ajuti. Azi sau maine voi pune matrialele pe pagina mea User:Dc76/project1. Daca te intereseaza si poti, esti binevenit sa editezi direct pe aceasta pagina. As vrea s-o "maturam", macar un pic, inainte de a o pune pe wikipedia. Imi dau foarte bine seama ca o sa dureze saptamani. Eu am strans ceva materiale timp de vreun an, dar intr-un mod cu totul si cu totul ne-profesionist: am copiat de pe diverse pagini intr-un fisier. Acum caut sa gasesc sursele folosite, si evident sa gasesc altele noi. In acelasi mod, am copiat unele imagini si harti, care sunt folositoare pentru uz personal, dar in 90% din cazuri nu sunt ale mele, si nu stiu daca pot sa le pun chiar si pe pagina proiect.

Salutari, :Dc76 21:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done: User:Dc76/project1. :Dc76 03:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, am scris un sumar in engleza la ultimul meu raspuns pe pagina mea. Aproape ca s-a inceput razboi din cauza ca noi vorbim romaneste! :-) Maramuresul de Nord m-a interesat ca subiect deoarece nu gasesti usor informatii complete despre el. Mi se pare logic sa scriu (cand vine vorba de geografie, istorie) despre orasul meu, regiunea mea, depsre locuri unde am fost si am aflat ceva substantial, sau daca nu - despre teme ca Maramuresul de Nord, despre care am cautat in mod special, adica sa fie teme unde stiu despre ce vorbesc. Despre Dobrogea sau Vrancea, sigur un dobrogean sau vrancean o s-o faca mai bine decat mine. Eu pot sa ajut la redactare, adica sa citesc si sa-i spun: "eu inteleg din ce-ai scris asa si asa, tu asta vrei sa spui?" sau "eu am auzit de asa si asa de care tu nu spui sau spui altfel, cum e adevarat?" Faptul ca am trecut pe langa cazinoul din constanta, de exemplu, nu ma indreptateste sa scriu un articol wikipedia despre el. Sper ca ti-ai copiat hartile si imaginile. Tu ai facut harti la Bugeac si Regiunea Cernauti, nu-i asa? Poate candva, daca gasesti timp, poti sa ma ajuti pt Maramuresul de Nord? Stiam ca dupa primul razboi mondial, Romania a impartit regiunea cu Cehoslovacia pe baza situatiei etnolingvistice din 1919 dar si pentru ca voria ca viitoarea C-Slovacie sa-i fie un aliat puternic. De fapt Cehoslovacia vroia, pe Romania o aranja alianta, dar nu o cauta in mod special. Romania a fost aliata si cu Polonia, asta s-a vazut mai mult in practica in 1919 si 1939 decat pe hartie. Alinta cu Cehoslovacia si Iugoslavia s-a daramat automat atunci cand Iug. si Rom. s-au abtinut cand Ceh. a fost impartita la Muenchen. Iar pentru Polonia o alianta formala cu Anglia insemna mult mai mult dacat cu Romania, chiar daca Anglia s-a purtat cum se stie in Razboiul Straniu.

Translation:

Hello, I've written a resume in English of my last answer on my talk page. There was almost a war started because we are talking in Romanian! :-) Northern Maramures has interested me as a subject because there is no complete and outright accesible information about it. It seems logical to me to write (when it's about geography, history) about my hometown, my region, about places I've been to and found out something substantial, or otherwise - about subjects like N Maremures, which I researched, that is about subjects where I know what I am talking about. About Dobrogea or Vrancea, certainly a Dobrobian or a Vrancian would do it better than me. I can help at editting, that is to read and tell: "I understand that and that from what you wrote, is that what you want to convey?" or "I heard about that and that which you don't say or say differently, what is true?" The fact that I passed by the casino building in Constanta, for example, does not entitle me to write a wikipedia article about it. You have made other maps' isn't it? Can you, maybe sometimes, help me for N. Maramures?

and then the remark

In fact it was Czechoslovakia that wanted the alliance. To Romania it was convinient, but it did not strive for it. Romania was also allied with Poland, this was seen more in practice in 1919 and 1939 than on paper. The alliance with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia crumbled automatically when Yug. and Rom. have abstained when Czech. was divided at Muenchen. And for Poland, a formal alliance with England ment much more than with Romania, even though Engliand behaved as is well known in the Strange War.:Dc76

This is only a cut-and-paste from my talk page, to be sure you don't miss it:

Hey, I'll most def. help you with the map, even though my maps are not very popular, if you take a look at the fuss that the last one created at the Romanians talkpage. I also saw a very nice map that you yourself had in that link that you send me with maps of N. Maramures. Anonimu is very good in making maps as well. I took a look over the article and ajusted some awkward sentences. But what would make the article really great is if you could provide a source for the historical part. That would make the tag about "sources" go away. Numai bine.Dapiks 22:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, are you talking about this Northern Maramureş or this User:Dc76/project1 ? I have not recently editted the article itself (it was someone else!), because I wanted to do a large expansion, to include not just general info and some history, but also various data, cultural stuff, expanded geography and history, and I wanted at least 1-2 other people to read it while in project, and I don't expect it to leave that state in less than several weeks. The article, as is now, is good for now. And I don't see anything controversial, on the contrary. But if we can expand, why not? What you did tonight is an excellent job, and I appreciate it very much - N.M. has a decent entry in wikipdia now. But it can have even a better article. Only you will need to waste some 20+ minutes only to read... :Dc76 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian villages

I just stopped by to say that despite our many disagreement I appreciate your creation of several articles about the villages in Ukraine. I edited them, as you see, but I do appreciate any kind of useful content creation along the Ukraine-related topics, including the topics about the Ukrainian Romanians, who I believe should be treated as the rightful citizens (which I think is mostly done by the state).

Aside from that, may I ask you to refrain from using the Romanian language when talking with other users in wikipedia space? Many people consider this rude. If you need to privately communicate with those users, the right way is not to use a relatively little know language but to use email. That said, I do not believe that you use the Romanian language specific to hide something, but still please remember that this is English Wikipedia and none of the Ukrainian, Russian and most of the Polish users use their languages in the talk pages. TIA and see you at talk pages regarding the contentious issues. --Irpen 05:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But me no speak English. Just kidding. Alright, I haven't noticed that I used Romanian alot lately. I'll try to remember to write in English. Dapiks 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Perhaps that would encourage your wikifriends to do the same. See ya at talk:Romanian diaspora :(. --Irpen 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "fact" tags

Please be reasonable. As you know, any number of "fact" tags may be added to any article thus seemingly invalidating them and/or tying up the hands of the opponents to respond with links. I am not arguing against citing facts. I am calling on your common senses to try to draw a line between reasonable citation requests and tag-trolling, when entire articles or paragraphs get filled up with fact tags. We can't have a policy of course to say what is reasonable here. Just use commons sense.

On a separate account, please understand that the presence rather than the absence of something requires the support by a citation. If you deny that the census was conducted fairly and freely in general (insulated incidents do take place in every polling but they do not invalidate the entire election, scale matters), you have to bring solid citations that point towards census fraud rather than demanding me to cite the lack of complaints. But this is a narrower thing, please heed to my request to use some commons sense with fact-tagging. --Irpen 03:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Romanian. Khoikhoi 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How should an admin be acting? Should he request that mikka give you a barnstar? Khoikhoi 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll keep that in mind. La revedere, Khoikhoi 02:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please do not overdo it. Stop being a PITA to the editors who just happen to disagree with you. I understand your convictions are strong but they may or may not be NPOV. Stop stalking your opponents. --Irpen 02:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pesonal attack

I hope you remember that you may be blocked for personal attacks. `'mikkanarxi 02:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

I have to reset your block since you were evading it as User:70.80.87.211. Please do not do it again Alex Bakharev 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...I love to be blocked when I bring up a good point and Khoikhoi and his friends don't have any good argument against me other then the fact that I went agaisnt the 3RR rule. But just for the record, this is the usual IP I use to log on and I forgot to sign in. So I would ask that you remove the {sock} tag from my IP since it was not intentional.Dapiks 04:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the IP's userpage per your request. Alex Bakharev 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not evade your block. If you want to communicate use your talk page or e-mail and somebody would transfer your message to the relevant talk page. I have not reset your block this time as the contribution was only to a talk page and was not disruptive, but it might be more severe next time. I have to block the IP though. Alex Bakharev 04:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is exactly what I did. And I am not evading my block - I did not do it from this computer and I did not sign in with this nick. If I were to transfer it from my talk-page to someone and that someone would have posted it there - which is exactly what I did (only that I verbally dictated to that someone what to say) --> then would that not be a block evasion as well? Dapiks 06:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bes SSR

Mă gîndesc să propun pentru ştergere articolul Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic, ca şi hoax, căci Mikka (creatorul articolului) n-a venit cu dovezi concrete că o asemenea republică a existat cu adevărat, iar ce scrie în articol (capitala era la Odesa) e de fapt o dovadă că respectiva republică a existat doar în visele unor bolşevici. Nici măcar Enciclopediile Sovietice nu o menţionează (conform Mikka). Am explicat părerea mea şi în pagina de discuţii a articolului. Aş vrea să ştiu şi părerea ta, creză că o propunere pentru ştergere e necesară?--MariusM 08:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vezi [6]--MariusM 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians nums

Constantzeanu, if you take a close look at all the references backing up the 28 million upper-estimate in Romanians, you'll notice they all refer to ethnic Romanians in addition to non-ethnic Romanian citizen, Moldovans, AND people who lived historcially in territories known as Romania. With your permission, I would like to move the 28 million mark from the ethnic-group box to the article text with a disclaimer saying that the number only refer to Romanian nationals and not purely ethnic Romanians. If you have a problem with this, please tell me why. The numbers have been fiddled around with for a long time, and I know you are a reasonable editor in comparison to the editors who have handled those numbers before. Horvat Den 04:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source from the Joshua Project that says 21 million. I emailed them and asked them where they get the stats, and they told me they take census data of people who report at least 1/2 of their family is ethnic Romanian, so that seems pretty legit. Horvat Den 15:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roma in Romania stats

Please see Talk:Roma people before reverting again. - TheMightyQuill 02:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no reliable source at all on how many Roma are in Romania. That's why it's disputed. What has done elsewhere on wikipedia is irrelevant, unless there is a rule, which there is not. There is good reason to include both stats. Why are you unwilling to leave them both to show that the number is greatly disputed? Again, please wait for consensus before reverting. - TheMightyQuill 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no, 2 million may not be the maximum... maybe there are twice that many, but 2 million is the estimate given by the World Bank, a reliable source. - TheMightyQuill 05:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

likewise I think you should wait as well before reverting me

As I said in my edit comment, the stat has been there for a long time without anyone dying. You'll reach your third revert before I will.

In wikipedia there is an agreement that official census data is used above all other secondary sources.

Stop saying that, it's not true. There is no guideline or rule that says that. What is done elsewhere is irrelevant.

This standard is applied in all ethnic-related articles and roma people are no different.

Roma are different, because they are notoriously underrepresented in Census counts, for reasons I have already stated. In Romania, many don't even have ID.

I just don't think that this sort of sites should be given as "works cited".

What sort? The UNDP's Regional Bureau for Europe, World Bank, International Association for Official Statistics? These are very reputable NPOV organizations, not Roma Rights organizations.

Again, if you want to help me find the published research work that i mentioned earlier, then we can change the numbers, not before.

Liegeois, J-P., Roma, Gypsies, Travellers Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 1994. P. 34.

- TheMightyQuill 05:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Bank is a secondary source and by no means can it be compared to the data given by an organized census.

Most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources. - TheMightyQuill 05:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you say census data takes precedence doesn't make it so. Please show me the wikipedia guideline, and i will "inform myself of this little detail." And no, I can't provide a link to that reference, but I don't need to either. I've provided the book, author and page number.

Look, my solution of having both statistics, with YOURS FIRST, is a compromise. I don't see why this is a problem for you. - TheMightyQuill 05:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The World Bank, UNDP's Regional Bureau for Europe, and the International Association for Official Statistics are all reliable NPOV sources who have published the data. If you disagree with their findings that's fine, we'll include both stats. - TheMightyQuill 05:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your suggestion that the world bank is less reliable than the Romanian census is your opinion. I have given legitimate reasons why the Romanian census is likely to be unreliable, but I do not insist on removing that statistic. Why? Because the number is disputed, and in the interests of NPOV, it makes sense to keep them both. Secondly, it's not "this and that bank" it's the World Bank. Thirdly, what you think the Roma organizations would agree to, is irrelevant. That is, again, your opinion, and original research. At any rate, there are a number of valid sources critical the Romanian Census. There is no reason not to include their alternative estimates. You admit that the census may be inaccurate. You think somewhat inaccurate, I think quite innaccurate. Let's leave our opinions out of it, and include reliable sources like the ones already there. - TheMightyQuill 05:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the world bank does not show the base for its findings.

Yes, it does. Read the page again.

If you go back to the link you send me about "secondary sources" you will see that it clearly states that reliable scholarly articles should be used, not some random data even if it does come from a known institution.

No, it doesn't. It mentions "reliable scholars" but it does so in the same paragraph that it suggests citing newspaper journalists. May I remind you that Romanian census data is not collected by scholars, but likly by average Romanians, likely earning a few lei an hour. So even if that WAS a wikipedia guideline, which is isn't, the point would be moot.

The world bank, most likely, based its number on that pushed by Rroma organizations which I think even you would agree cannot be taken to be reliable.

Your opinion. POV. Offer proof or stop criticizing it.

Why won't you help me find the article that I was talking about which is based on scholarly research and a parallel census which determines a more realistic number of Rroma? I've already provided you with several links, plus published work by Liegeois. If you want to find more evidence, go right ahead. - TheMightyQuill 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, first of all, a census no matter how bad it may be according to some, still gives the best possible data concerning a population. Your opinion. POV. Offer proof or stop making this claim.

Secondly, people were free to state if they were Rroma or not. Only 535.000 did.

If the numbers were reported accurately, then only 535,000 of those polled responded that they were Roma. I think the criticism by groups suggesting an undercount is that many people are not polled at all. How do censuses work? Census agents go door to door, handing out written census forms, and waiting for them to be returned. But what if you don't have a normal home? What if you live in a shanty town? What if the census agent doesn't come to your shanty town because it's not a legally recognized home? What if you can't read? What if you don't have any ID to prove who you are? What if you don't bother responding at all for the same reason that you don't have ID?

If you can find an alternative poll or some kind of similar scholarly research that says otherwise, please show it to me, and I will be the first one to change the numbers. Otherwise, please wait until a more reliable ref. can be provided.

There are already several reliable sources posted critical of the census. I don't need an alternative poll or scholarly research. There is no wikipedia guideline that says I do. Your demands are not supported by any wikipedia guideline. TheMightyQuill 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are really missing the point. You are saying that some other source is more important then an official census. Which in wikipedia is not. Take a look at other ethnic articles and you will find out that census data is always used exclusively.

Trust me, I am not missing your point. I understand exactly what you are saying, but I disagree with you. I am not saying any source is more important than the official census. The official census should absolutely be included, and included first, which it is. I am saying that other reliable sources are also important and should also be included, after the census. Again, your suggestion that wikipedia officially values census data over other forms of data is not fact. This may be the case in other pages, but that's not a rule. Find another ethnicity where census data is deeply criticized by a number of reliable sources but NOT included in the wikipedia article. The fact is that ethnicity census data is not often criticized to such a degree, which is why this article is different than other wikipedia articles. - TheMightyQuill 06:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't work yourself into a snit over the use of the conjunction "or" in the listbox: it would take away from your otherwise useful contributions. But the construct "x or y" is correct here, based on the reference given, which shows a clear conflict between two figures, the "official" 500,000 on the one hand and the Roma estimate of 2 million on the other. Remember, we're restricted to the universe of what's cited in the article in this instance. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be much confusion (with myself as well as anyone) over the references given for those figures. I was basing my statements on what the reference in the article said, not what the actual sources said. As you pointed out, some of those references do indeed give the figure as "1-2 million", but it's very unclear which ones are which. That reference needs to be completely rewritten and clarified. It actually contains 4 separate sources, which are not properly identified. Please do this before carrying this dispute on any farther. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.stepinproject.org/romania.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/EXTROMA/0,,contentMDK:20333806~menuPK:615999~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:615987,00.html

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=308 - also talks about numbers estimated for slovakia and hungary

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/20/europe/EU-GEN-Romania-Gypsies-Slavery.php

http://books.google.com/books?id=Usd7XU6a29oC&pg=PR14&lpg=PR14&dq=1+million+roma+in+romania&source=web&ots=G3QNsXsJAR&sig=y4OZTSwJWO_XdNl_cz2ceoMJlcw - another article on 1 to 2 million and up to 1 mil in hun, slovakia, bulgaria and others

ITS Really bullshit to come to check my account and every time to notice how my blocking period is extended, especially the last one even though i did not try to evade it. Dapiks 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Army

Hi, and sorry for the delay.

Regarding the active troops - After the modernization stages are completed, the Romanian Army will have about 80000-85000 men (including civilians). I think you should include the number with civilian personnel in the List of countries by active troops. However, I propose that you could leave the 90000 number for now and maybe we would change it in the future (in 2006 were 93.600 personnel employed and I don't think the troops number will drastically decrease this year or in the near future.)
Regarding the Romanian Land Forces article, I made a to do list on the talk page. So if you are interested to help, don't hesitate!
Regarding the land forces active troops-they are about 45000 and it doesn't counts if they are in the operational brigades or territorial brigades; the territorial troops are included in the active troops number.

Best Regards, --Eurocopter tigre 11:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other battalions were disbanded (although they were part of the 2nd Paratroopers Brigade, not of the 34th Infantry brg.). I recently found an article in the land forces official magazine in which it says that the paratroopers unit size will decrease from a brigade (ex.2nd paratroopers brigade, disbanded in early 2005) to a battalion (495th btn.). The other 2 btns. (60th and 498th) I think were disbanded - but I'm not 100% sure of this. So, if you find any new informations, just let me know. Best, Eurocopter tigre 07:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are you interested in making something usefull for this article? If yes, but only if you want, you can propose it here for Good article promotion. Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 13:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 495th is listed in the structure and the graphic, just look more carefully. I saw an article on the Romanian Land Forces official magazine which clearly says romania will have only a single paratroopers btn. in the future. Regards, Eurocopter tigre 18:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that 151st btn. is subordinated to the 15th brg. (Iasi)? The battalion is currently listed as subordinated to the 34th Infantry Brigade (Romania), so if you have any infos, please move it to the 15th Mechanized Brigade (Romania). Best, Eurocopter tigre 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent source!!! I find that the only active paratrooper btn. in romania is the 60th para. btn. "Baneasa-Otopeni" (which I thought was disbanded). Also, I updated the subordinated units in the 34th inf. brg. and I will talk with noclador to update the graphic. Good job! Eurocopter tigre 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.Am sa ma interesez de divizionul 817 artilerie, dar sa stii ca in wikipedia nu le vom trece sub numele de divizioane, ci ca batalioane, deoarece un divizion este echivalentul unui batalion. Nu inteleg de ce armata romana continua sa foloseasca numele de divizion; se poate confunda foarte usor in engleza cu divizia, de fapt termenul "divizion" nu se poate traduce in lb. engleza.
2.Brigada 122 Logistica este subordonata direct Statului Major al Armatei (MApN-ului).
3.Batalioanele mecanizate sau de infanterie mecanizata, pot contine tancuri - nu este obligatoriu ca o unitate care contine tancuri, sa se numeasca "Batalionul xxx Tancuri".
4.Legat de Corpul 4 Armata Teritorial, eu am gasit foarte putine surse, si chiar nu stiu ce sa zic despre brigazile 69 si 4.

Eurocopter tigre 11:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu stiu ce sa zic despre bg. 6 RAA. Daca zici ca a fost desfintata, fa tu schimbarile in articole te rog. Poate ai putea gasi ceva despre batalioanele de parasutisti si politie militara din corpul 4. Eurocopter tigre 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cred ca o traducere buna pentru Batalion Deservire ar fi "Logistic Support Battalion". Pacat ca exista asa putine informatii despre corpul 4 armata teritorial, este aproape imposibil sa faci o structura completa si la zi. Eurocopter tigre 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acum ii scriu un mesaj lui noclador pt. update, dar din pacate cred ca e in vacanta pana marti. Am retusat putin unele dintre modificarile facute de tine, deasemenea, traducerea pt Batalion de Transmisiuni este "Signal Battalion". Eurocopter tigre 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your modifications to the graphic (I prefer writing in english because we are on the english wiki, so we won't need to translate all the units names from romanian to english):

1.in the 282nd brg., the 284 btn, is a tank btn, not an armoured btn.
2.in the 1st Log. brg, please correct the spelling of the 102nd btn (from "Maintnance" to "Maintainance")

*3.I'm not really sure about the 32nd inf. btn. (Timisoara) - I dont know if its subordinated to the 81st brg, or if its at least still active...Any thoughts?-----haha, you are a mind reader, good source! Eurocopter tigre 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure if the 52nd eng. btn is belonging to the 81st brg...(actually, im pretty sure is not). And the 81st brg. certainly has a log btn. Eurocopter tigre 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

136th btn is for sure part of the 4th brigade, but im not sure about the 52nd (but you can put them both in the 4th brg. for now). Ok, I'm quite tired, enough for today, see you tommorow! -Best, --Eurocopter tigre 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traian Băsescu

Hi, if you are or will be on WP these days, may I ask you to please watch Traian Băsescu, given that it is tagged a current event. I and Dl.goe have copyedited recently some sections of the article, then an old acquentence has rv it. If you feel like copy editting it, please be my guest. I will not mind if someone edits, even massively, incl what you might guess i would disagree, as long as it is honest copyedit, not blant rv without even reading. If you have time and interest...:Dc76 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Land Forces

I just came back from my short break and saw that you added units to the Romanian Land Forces- I will update the graphic first thing in the morning, but now I head to bed (it is 4:30) thanks for the update in the meantime noclador 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the graphic. I added only units that I found in the specific Brigades articles. When you add/change something with the structure, please leave me a little note on my talkpage and I will update the graphic again; best regards noclador 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts regarding the best format for the RoLF structure?? Should it remain like is it now, or should it be changed? Victor12 proposed the next format:

1st Territorial Army Corps "General Ioan Culcer" - HQ Bucharest

2nd Infantry Operational Brigade "Rovine" - headquartered at Craiova
- Three Mountain troops battalions
- One Mixed Artillery battalion
- One Anti-aircraft artillery battalion
- One Logistics battalion.
8th Mixed Artillery Brigade "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" - headquartered at Focşani
- Two Artillery battalions
- Two Multiple Rocket Launchers battalions
- One Data acquisition battalion
- One Logistics battalion.

Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Romanians of Serbia--152.3.200.168 14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Eurocopter tigre 10:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Military history task force

Hi Dapiks, i'm trying to create the Romanian Military History task force on the Military History WikiProject, and I need some volunteers which will be the future members of the task force. The RO task force will be most probably created after this Polish task force model. Would you be interested in this? I'm sure that the Romanian history deserves it! --Eurocopter tigre 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Good to see you! Are you officialy back, so we could start some working on RoLF and RoAF? Best, --Eurocopter tigre 12:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, have a look at this -http://www.mapn.ro/eveniment/2007/200711/20071107/2007_5.pdf . I've found some new units there. Also, you might want to help on Romanian Military Police article, which is based on this site - [7] Best, --Eurocopter tigre 14:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cred ca cea mai importanta problema pe care o avem acum de rezolvat este cea a tancurilor. In inventarul din articolul RoLF figureaza peste 1000 de tancuri, iar noi avem in structura doar doua batalioane a cate 50-60 tancuri. Oare este posibil ca batalioanele de infanterie/infanterie mecanizata sa opereze tancuri (ma refer la un numar mic, 10-15 aparate)?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't

Here is a nonsensical comment you made in reference to me, and an accusation that I would find amusing were I not tired of your usual trolling. Now, you seemed unwilling to actually check the history of the article before launching into such a diatribe: have a looksie at who added what last and at what my edit was. Now, that aside, let me point out another issue. The article cited (for whose reliability I cannot and will not vouch) says, verbatim, "a three-man delegation from the newly created Community of Moldovans in Romania". You state "the source says three people comprised this movement" (sic). You must have no grasp of what the word "delegation" means. Let's go on this magical journey together: "A group of delegates used to discuss issues with an opponent", where "delegates" means "a person authorized to act as representative for another; a deputy". As I'm sure you realized by now after reading this, if a three-member delegation is x, the group it represents will always have to be at least x+1. So, however good a source that one is, it most certainly does not say that there were "three people in the movement". And, btw, "a number of three people" is not in English - it looks more like some sort of entertaining pidgin. Dahn (talk) 06:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, if your intention is to show that the organization has no appeal or importance in Romania, a good step would be to first look at WP:NPOV. And then, instead of messing around with the text and pretending that articles permit you to editorialize, you could be productive and cite the facts: in this article from a reliable source, mention is made of the controversy surrounding the association. Summarizing this kind of issues would be an intelligent and productive way of approaching such a subject, instead of the argument from silence you keep pushing in that article. I think you have good reason to take this advice I'm dispensing. Dahn (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And because of your reply to these posts, I have since opened a WP:WQA thread to discuss your use of epithets: here. Laters, Dahn (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Dahn, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Let this be your last warning. Not only was this a totally incorrect assumption that Dahn was not vandalising but assuming bad faith, but your talk page note was nothing more than a personal attack. Since you have a very lengthy contribution history consisting of incivility, personal attacks, edit warring and block evasions with sockpuppets for which you have been blocked many times for, I will highly suggest you correct your actions. Any further instances of the above and further disruption will only result in an immediate block. seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 02:19, 3 March 2008 edit Seicer (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 20,321 edits Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Dahn. (TW) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:25, 3 March 2008 edit undo Cheeser1 (talk \| contribs) 7,317 edits m →‎March 2008: typo Next edit →
Line 705:		Line 705:

	== March 2008 ==		== March 2008 ==
	[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg\|30px]] This is your '''only warning'''. <br> The next time you make a [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks\|personal attack]]{{#if:User talk:Dahn\| as you did at [[:User talk:Dahn]]}}, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy\|blocked]] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. {{#if:\|{{{2}}}\|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa4im --> ''Let this be your last warning. Not only was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovans&diff=194841906&oldid=194509263 this] a totally incorrect assumption that Dahn was not vandalising but assuming [[WP:AGF\|bad faith]], but your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADahn&diff=195423107&oldid=195019165 talk page note] was nothing more than a [[WP:NPA\|personal attack]]. Since yo have a very lengthy contribution history consisting of [[WP:CIVIL\|incivility]], [[WP:NPA\|personal attacks]], [[WP:3RR\|edit warring]] and block evasions with sockpuppets for which you have been blocked many times for, I will highly suggest you correct your actions. Any further instances of the above and further disruption will only result in an immediate block.'' <small>[[User:Seicer\|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] \| [[User_talk:Seicer\|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Seicer\|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)		[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg\|30px]] This is your '''only warning'''. <br> The next time you make a [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks\|personal attack]]{{#if:User talk:Dahn\| as you did at [[:User talk:Dahn]]}}, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy\|blocked]] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. {{#if:\|{{{2}}}\|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa4im --> ''Let this be your last warning. Not only was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovans&diff=194841906&oldid=194509263 this] a totally incorrect assumption that Dahn was not vandalising but assuming [[WP:AGF\|bad faith]], but your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADahn&diff=195423107&oldid=195019165 talk page note] was nothing more than a [[WP:NPA\|personal attack]]. Since you have a very lengthy contribution history consisting of [[WP:CIVIL\|incivility]], [[WP:NPA\|personal attacks]], [[WP:3RR\|edit warring]] and block evasions with sockpuppets for which you have been blocked many times for, I will highly suggest you correct your actions. Any further instances of the above and further disruption will only result in an immediate block.'' <small>[[User:Seicer\|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] \| [[User_talk:Seicer\|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Seicer\|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)