Jump to content

User talk:Nergaal/dead

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Nergaal

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cezarika f. (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 19 November 2007 (→‎Only remaining descendats). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Nergaal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Harlowraman 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

Hi, Nergaal. I'm a member of the WikiProjectRomania, and I think I owe you some explanations and excuses: as we stand, the project is underdeveloped. It was started by a user who is no longer active, and its membership has remained small. I guess I'm the most active mamber there, but that is simply because I saw it happening and decided to add my name there and basically tag article talk pages with it. This was in the hope that the project would become more active with time.

Concerning the maps: the best way is if these are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which makes them available on all wiki projects. That is unless they already are uploaded there, and I'm pretty sure many of them are are - which means that the maps should be available. Note, however, that the Romanian users who designed them don't seem to have agreed on a single format, while the maps used for cities are, by what seems to be consensus and replicating such maps for other countries, those of city locations in Romania, not those of city locations in counties (as opposed to communes). I really don't know any more on the subject. Dahn 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could create an account on commons and upload it there. The upload comes with instructions and a template, and there is a special set of instructions for uploading images already released on other wiki projects (since once it is placed there it can be used on all projects - meaning that bots or admins will consequently replace the originally uploaded image with the commons version). It is okay to upload uncopyrighted images there, and these have been released by their creators. However, if you decide to do this, please make sure you don't forget to tag them with a proper tag, to indicate their author, and to provide a link to the original location, because they will otherwise be deleted or the info will get tangled. Also note that commons is only for pictures that are not copyrighted, and that other rules will apply in other cases. Dahn 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I strongly believe that the articles on the metropolitan zones should be merged into the articles on the cities - their administrative role seems informal, and the articles are not likely to get any bigger, whereas all the info could simply be a distinct part of the larger articles. Dahn 01:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]





Romania: main page - history section

re: Romania: main page - history section Please do not further expand the history section. It is allready long enough allready. The article is way too long on general (100k), and history is a huge factor. Please do not add large modifications in the history section, unless they are truly relevant and add to the compactness. Nergaal 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you are very welcome to modify and expand the history articles (the main one and the subarticles)! Nergaal 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. So kind of you to give me permission. My "Adds" were modest indeed, being only some glue phrases and more professional section titles. Compare this and this, which took quite a while, but was worth it. The current version has the same problems I set out to solve. You with all your vast experience since July 1st, are so clearly a better judge of what's best than me and 20k edits spread over all eleven sister projects. Glad to know that.
  2. Compactness should not be your primary concern, but instead completeness and a professional looking presentation (appearance).
  3. I was "Done"—any expansion was up to the project people, beyond the small amount of glue text I added. You have to trade length for spreading out the link density, and I would urge you to forget any rationale that suggests a main article for a country with as lengthy a history as that one has should meet some arbitrary size cap. WP:IAR certainly applies to some extent. (Try looking at India, if you think you have size issues!)
  4. Do you realize undoing my edits, in particular, restoring those obnoxiously long and large section titles is neither encyclopediac, nor professional looking, nor a step forward. I understand your concern on the byte count, but shortening the titles and a few dozens of lines so the article reads intelligibly to the casual reader is not going to kill you folks.
  5. ANY important historical era deserves some mention of the high points, and asking a reader to combine millenia is hardly fair to your region... the history is there, it happened, our job is to report on it, at least in a survey form. Putting links (some of us hate to change pages!) is not equivilent to giving a reader a recap of the era—in particular, I find the way you did it in that page to be poorly prioritized.
  6. More than 3-4 words in a section title is really unprofessional. WHERE in any print encyclopedia have you seen that? Longer subtitles, as per my changes, sure. NOT TOC entries. Perhaps you've got your nose in too many journals and not enough in "Acceptable practices". It's really off-putting.
  7. Since I do a lot of tidying up on pages needing fresh input, and most of it stands up, you perhaps ought to recheck the finished copy I left and compare to the current appearance.
  8. Removing {{FixHTML}} is a bad idea, it does no harm, and solves several different issues on browsers with rendering order issues, especially with regard to infoboxes and the strange effects edit links can have around such.

Be well, like a moving pen, I generally write just once. For the most part I do it well. OTOH, maybe this one should have a revert. Cheers // FrankB 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PING -- And go take a break before you get yourself banned. This is NBD, and getting into a pissing contest with anyone over it means your ego instead of your brain is engaged. Take a walk, think on my suggestion. Don't know whether I covered all your counterpoints or not, but I tried. RL is now way overdue. Be well. // FrankB 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your reverts in Romania article are inadmissible. Please keep in mind that this way of editing may be considered as disruption. `'Míkka>t 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

One more revert and you will be blocked from editing. `'Míkka>t 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way of solving a disagreement is to ask for opinions of other users, not reverting your opponent. Complete reversal of someone's work is blatant disrespect and allowable only for vandalism. `'Míkka>t 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am repeating again: please seek an opinon of another editor of the topic. Possible places are WP:THIRD and Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Also, please refrain from personal accusations. `'Míkka>t 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please discuss article content in article talk pages, not in user talk pages. `'Míkka>t 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

[1]: If you continue your aggressive behavior you will be blocked. `'Míkka>t 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is aggressive behavior? Another statement that is not backed up. I am just stating how is the situation seen from my point of view. If I am wrong, please correct me.

How would you call abusing admin privileges (i.e. the thing you keep threatening me with)?

You are blocked for 24h for abusive trolling of user page user talk:Fabartus. `'Míkka>t 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked you. The block was clearly inappropriate as the blocking admin apparently has a relationship with the other party, and all you did was point that out. (I note that the blocking admin removed your observation that they knew each other.) The blocking admin should have recused himself and reported it rather than blocking you himself. I would suggest you avoid both of them in the future. Happy editing! -- But|seriously|folks  02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your impartiality! Nergaal 04:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, can't I edit pages right now? Am I blocked or unblocked?Nergaal 04:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you were autoblocked. I have unblocked your IP, so you should be able to edit now. -- But|seriously|folks  05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all that

I was just dropping in to:

  1. share this: Image:ClassicalBalkans1849.jpg to see if you wanted it for the page
  2. To request you rethink and reattach Thracia as one of the main articles cited. See about half way down and the meaning once meaning everything south of the Danube... that's part of Romania, so far as I know, even if the Province (Thracia) after Roman times was scruntched down into and between Macedonia... which is the whole point... geo-historical terms are neither geo nor hist without the other! Mostly, in Greek times, Thracia was meant to include Dacia up to the mountains north of the Danube.
  3. Lastly, I wanted to compliment you on how its looking after your recent batch of edits. Much nicer and more standardized.
  4. 'Really' lastly <g>, I'm really sorry you ran afoul of Mikalai. I'm not sure what pushed his buttons, but it's likely you just need to slow your response time down a day or two. Template:IThat's all I wanted you to do too. This is a wiki, there is no hurry! Template:IO'Course, "Getting Fresh" didn't help either... particular since I don't know him from Adam [I do know fresh, my two boys get carried away too, now and again <g>].
Had it been CBD or David Kernow or Mel Etitis, yeah you'd have a tiny case. A handful of others, maybe a little. But when you make such an accusation (or just have a suspicion!), look at the time line first. He intervened without a peep from me. I can't prove it, but was likely the massive diff appearance and no edit summary taken together while he was patrolling recent changes. You may as well say I'm buds with Jimbo Wales, just because I've yelled at him a couple of times in public and emails. NOT!

Be well. // FrankB 23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  1. share this: Image:ClassicalBalkans1849.jpg to see if you wanted it for the page
  2. To request you rethink and reattach Thracia as one of the main articles cited. See about half way down and the meaning once meaning everything south of the Danube... that's part of Romania, so far as I know, even if the Province (Thracia) after Roman times was scruntched down into and between Macedonia... which is the whole point... geo-historical terms are neither geo nor hist without the other! Mostly, in Greek times, Thracia was meant to include Dacia up to the mountains north of the Danube.
  1. I have added another image instead - that is easier to read
  2. I have checked the Tharacia article and I wasn't able to find refereces to either Dacia and present-day Romania. Also, the text in the histor section of Romania does not mention the word Thracia at all. I am not sayin you are wrong, but that there would be a main link to an article that makes no reference to the parent article. Nergaal 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well, that I find likely... though those old maps are cool in their own way, as one thing they do well is use the historical names everyone referred to in classical times, literature, and studies. As such, they are a good second source when modern text is muddled... as is quite common with our writing on wikipedia.
  2. No, it probably doesn't, but it should, which is the message. Ancient Thracia, as the Greeks would have figured it included that part of Romania which became Dacia, as well as the part (south bank) of the Danube conquered by Rome earlier in Augustus' time (Moesia). The other question is what they meant by Illiria, or however that latin term originated in Greek histories and literary mentions, but it's pretty clear that region is to the Adriatic side of the Balkan penninsula, the mountains, as always, being a barrier to both culture and armies. Template:IKeep in mind, the Romans copied much of what they knew of the world from Greeks. In other words, the north of "old (Greek) Thracia" is the Dacia you agree is part of the region. What century "one is in"— is the point, and my meaning would apply before the founding of Rome. But that it was part of the region before the meaning changed, means it should be included... it's part of the history of the region, and the linguistic language analysis back up the point, as do the skimpy historical records or cultural references from those early days in "written history". // FrankB 07:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Look at the last sentence of the introduction to 'Dacia': "The inhabitants of this district are generally considered as belonging to the Thracian nations." There's another cross reference in Moesia, which again is north of the Balkans and west of the Black sea. Bottom line, geography determines a great deal of history for getting around on foot was the only way in most places until the last century, and still is today in much of the world. That's the whole underpinning of geolinguistic analysis of ancient peoples, which is by the way, the thing which brought me into Romania... there are slavic groups north and south of Romania and Hungry—but the slavic language died out in those central regions. Why? I'd guess a thorough bloodletting by the Huns and Avars, and so forth effectively burying the prior culture and its social underpinnings. That's another reason an article covering the geographic-historical region that happens in 'this century' to be a modern nation state coinciding with that longer existence. The article has to service both, not just the nation-state. // FrankB 07:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Four peer review requests you recently made (Adolf Hitler, Football, Life and Atom) have been ignored because the request instructions were not completed. Please either complete the nomination procedure (see WP:PR) or archive the requests (replace {{peerreview}} with {{oldpeerreview}}). Alternatively, I can delete the pages for you, if you let me know that's what you prefer. DrKiernan 10:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete them. Nergaal (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't

I moved it out of the mainspace (WikiProject Elements/Templates) to wikipedia space {Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Templates). I believe you accidentally posted it to the wrong location so I moved it for you. –– Lid(Talk) 12:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks!Nergaal (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Only remaining descendats

"Besides being the only remaining descendants of the Eastern Romans" -- I think this is incorrect if Aromanian is considered a separated language (which I think it pretty much is) -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably open to interpretations, some consider Aromanian a separate language, but in the context that you mentioned that Romanians are "the only remaining descendants" I don't think it is understood that Aromanians are included in the category too, actually I think it's pretty clear that is about Romanians in Romania especially that the article is about Romania not about Romanians in general. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, reedited my edits.Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all people can understand Aromanian.--Cezarika f. (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ha? Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have some problems with User:mikkalai. Why did he deleted the text anyway? --Cezarika f. (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to edit your version of article Moldova, it was written there that Moldovans are not Romanians in the 2nd paragraph.--Cezarika f. (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is your problem? why are you acting so p.m.s.-y? :D
Nu ştiu, ce înseamnă p.ms? Nu te enervează ăla?--Cezarika f. (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu fii pampas: că era bine. Located geographically at the crossroads of Latin and Slavic cultures and having the common heritage with the Culture of Romania,[1] Moldova has enriched its own culture adopting and maintaining some of the traditions of its neighbors. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cezarika f. (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pampas??? encycopaedic references such as britannica are discouraged - I believe. Anyways, next time you make edits, PLEEEASE take into account other opinions by other users. The hidden text was there for a purpose.
Also, ahat is your point with your edits? They are neither too objective, neither pro-Romanian, neither pro-Russian, nor pro-Moldavian. What are you trying to prove?Nergaal (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu poţi vorbi în română? că nu prea ştiu bine engleza. Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm a he not a her.--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) "pampas"=? 2) your profficiency in english might limit your ability to have good edits (i.e. step down a bit from this additude); 3)if you are actually 12, then congrats for being on wiki; but really, stop acting like a kiddo, or even worse, like a 12-year old girl! Nergaal (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aşa ma enervezi mă. Nu poţi să nu-mi mai dai atâtea sfaturi? --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just hope you are not a heshe
and I hope you are not a shim :-D Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mă enervantule nu poţi să te opreşti?--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please stop begging for a permanent block! Nergaal (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
do you speak Romanian? I guess not.--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what the f is with Stratan! my version has the same thing about stratan as your edit!
Then why you you yeal at me? My version is not worster than yours. You think it's your own article?--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YES IT IS!!! if you would have bothered to see that other users allready agreed then the article would not have been blocked now. RETARDATULE!
So, your only word in Romanian is that one? You didn't even bother what stupities have your version: I will show you and you'll agree with me. BOSUMFLATULE! --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting
BINE
Current version has: The Moldovans are a Latin people identically to the Romanians, with the Romanian language. while your version had: The majority of the population is represented by Moldovans, which are Latin people officially recognized as a distinct group from Romanians, having a separate Moldovan language - although probably identical in most aspects to Romanian language. You see the difference? ? Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yep, that that you are a moron!
distinct group from Romanians, having a separate Moldovan language ce f de popor este? şi ce p m faci de nu înţelegi mai repede? --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is officially a word too much out of your intelligence range?Nergaal (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
was that all you found to be a stupidity in my edit?Nergaal (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was in fact very similar with my version, in fact was your version. I don't know why you cry like a 12 years old kiddo. You want to have the pattern of your own on all articles?--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Arguing on the internet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arguing on the internet.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. --OrphanBot (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42825/Moldova The historical ties between Bessarabia and Romania and the ethnic kinship of Moldovans and Romanians are still reflected in the culture of Moldova.
  2. ^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42825/Moldova The historical ties between Bessarabia and Romania and the ethnic kinship of Moldovans and Romanians are still reflected in the culture of Moldova.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nergaal/dead&oldid=172492769"