Jump to content

User talk:Ronhjones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.163.215.166 (talk) at 00:12, 10 November 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Status: Unknown

 
Local time: 03:56, 4 September 2024 GMT [refresh]. Click here to refresh.
  		   0  0  0  28  129



Wednesday
4
September
03:56 UTC
Welcome to Ronhjones' Talk page

on English Wikipedia


Hi there! To keep the flow of conversations, I like to keep threads on one page where possible. So, if you post a message here, I'll probably respond to it here. Conversely, if I post a message on your talk page, you can respond there if you wish; since I've edited your talk page I'll have it on my watchlist. Thanks!

If you wish to contact me privately you can email me

Leave me a message | Send me an email.
Note: To any interested parties. This is my only account, there are a few minor edits under my static IP address 87.127.178.158 and my work IP address (but that is shared) 193.113.135.87

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

Vlachs of Serbia

Who has right to present Serbian Vlachs as Romanians?! They have their national name, culture, tradition - identity and they are recognized by the Serbian Constitution an Law as Vlachs (Vlasi). The other ethnic group in Serbia are Romanians. Iin Serbia everyone is free to declare whatever nationality it choose in census. SERBIA - Census 2002: Vlachs: 40.054; Romanians: 34.576. So, who gave right to itself to not respect these facts?! This is the act of basic rudeness! VLACHS ARE VLACHS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.114.197 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were politely asked by User:Dc76 in the edit summary of his revert of 22:30, 26 October 2009 "please, do discuss such radical changes in the talk page beforehead", as you do not wish to discuss it there, then you should not be surprised at any subsequent reverting.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to assertions made above by user 91.150.114.197, the Serbian Constitution does not mention Vlachs. The Serbian Constitution only mentions Serbs by name, other ethnic groups simply being referred to as other citizens of the state of Serbia.

Regarding the term Vlach as found in popular usage, in the media, and in government censuses, it is true that in many peoples' minds there is a distinction between Vlachs and Romanians. However Vlach and its variants Wallach, Wallachian, etc are well-known medieval exonyms for Romanians (cf. the medieval Romanian state of Wallachia or Vlachia). Moreover the Vlachs of Serbia, in their own speech, which consists of dialects of Romanian, call themselves Romanian. There is also ample evidence, mentioned in the Wiki article, of a substantial Vlach origin from the adjacent territory of modern Romania. Nevertheless it is also true that most Vlachs of Serbia today do not self-identify with the modern Romanian people or state. This is partly a result of the complete lack of education on Vlach origin, history, language and culture in Serbian schools. There also is no media (papers, TV, radio, etc) or religious services in Vlach, except for one single tiny church in the village of Malajnica near Negotin, under Father Bojan Aleksandrovic, which is under constant political and religious pressure to close down. Because of longstanding assimilationist pressure, only some 16% of the Vlachs of Serbia declared themselves as such in the last census, in 2002. The true number of Vlachs of Serbia is estimated at 250 000. C0gnate (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time in commenting. I think that shows why the IP did not decide to follow the advice given and discuss on the talk page - as (s)he probably knew what the outcome would be.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:B3zocdeq8n

HEY WASSAP MAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by B3zocdeq8n (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is up.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

It is purely fact

Rick Goodman

This is not vandalism at all. If you still think so, please give me encyclopedic sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.100.179 (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It your job to provide the references to the data that you add.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links are commercial. In fact, they are total garbage. Thanks for catching the wiktionary removal, though. [1] I removed the links. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you call commercial. The main article does not sell anything so there is no gain there. There is the usual "Google" type ads, which are always a pain. Does that make the link commercial - I would suspect opinion would be divided. I'm certain there are a lot more WP:EL with those sort of "Google" ads.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That other garbage exists is not a reason to keep these, so I can't do anything with that arguments. Articles in this area are being created and trashed with links by a small group of users. I'm going to clean a few, starting with sweeping out the garbage. I have no doubt these links will be deemed commercial and not usable by the wikipedia community.
Here, check this out. It describes some details about the types of links that should be used and shouldn't be used. Neither of the links in the article are in categories of the former, and both fit categories of "shouldn't" in multiple ways. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read those before. Having a quick refresh - They might slip in with "Links to be considered"#4. I agree that they do struggle with "Links normally to be avoided"#5 - with respect to the "Amazon"/"Google" content. There is some good data there, just a matter of ignoring the ads (I automatically don't read them, maybe that's just me). As WP:ELs go, I've seen worse, at least there was only two - sometimes I see pages with far too many...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen lots worst, too. But you work in the dredges, I see from your contributions history. I'd bet you've seen far worse than I have. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes indeed - if I had a pound for every extra "gay", "pen*s", etc. that gets added, I would rather rich., and I still get it wrong sometimes (but not very often!) - I got totally fooled last night by "http://www.mmafighting.com.au.tt/news/2009/10/29/overturning-controversial-decision-bound-to-cause-more-controversey" - a fake page set up just to vandalize Wikipedia. Fortunately such smart vandals are few and far between.
Good luck with your campaign on better EL.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know better than to attempt that foolhardy campaign. I was just going to clean up a few articles. Thanks for all the time you devote to cleaning up crap, but please come up and breathe every now and then. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you for reverting the vandalism done to my talk page. Have a cookie! :) - Zhang He (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, always happy to revert a vandalism of a User Page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Understand the Rules Because They're Too Hard to Find

Hey bro when I was updating This Romantic Tragedy's Wikipedia section, I thought that there was free right to edit a page. Not to mention I also did this as a joke. So please disregard my activity then. TriadSambo (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put some useful links on your talk page. Enjoy a good read.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But the Battle of the Bands thing did exist and is a fact so if it's cool, I'm just gonna update it so it says that they did lose to Centaur Rodeo (which is my brother's band: http://www.myspace.com/centaurr0de0) TriadSambo (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace is not WP:RS  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I didn't know you couldn't use Myspace as a reliable source. So what can I edit then? Am I even doing this right? Let me know. TriadSambo (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All content needs to verifiable - see WP:V and the links on that page  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wack-a-mole

Hey, thanks for the revert on my talk page. This was my first day using Huggle and wow! I felt like I was bailing out a sailboat with a thimble. Amazing. Take care (and try to avoid eye strain!), JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You picked a rather busy night to start! It's usually only half as busy...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Thanks

Hey there. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Neighbours article. I leave the page for ten minutes and they, User talk:203.44.180.197, came back. I was just asking the person who placed the 'last warning' notice on the user's talk page what I should do next and you'd already took action. So, thank you (again) for that. :) JuneGloom07 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I see that "they" are now blocked for a month  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have a problem with an user on Eiður Guðjohnsen, he insist the link should be added to an article as Eidur Gudjohnsen and not as Eiður Guðjohnsen. I explained him why it must be added in the original language but he insists that I'm wrong. Could you tell me if I'm wrong or if he's worng? Archibald Leitch (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my field - all I can say is that there is no page Eidur Gudjohnsen, that's a redirect to Eiður Guðjohnsen, which is the correct page name, so I would assume one should use Eiður Guðjohnsen, as it's not good practice to link to redirect pages. Maybe post a question at Wikipedia:Help desk as well?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast answer. Archibald Leitch (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Adalbert Schweigart

Hans Adalbert Schweigart is wrong spelled, and a person is not an institution. I don't know, if it is spelled Hans-Adalbert Schweigart. --Fmrauch (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a person, then you can nominate for a speedy deletion by adding an {{db-a7}} template to the page (see WP:CSD).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sotochace

Are you able to undo what User:Sotochace did? I have blocked the user, but I am not familiar enough with the subject to restore what should be. Jeepday (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm almost there. There was a page move, but as nothing was edited later, I was able to move it back. I'm tidying up the "otheruses" templates at the top of the three pages as they are too confusing as well.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. All three pages refer to a new page I made - Seven Society (disambiguation) at the top, which is a bit better than the original.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - See User talk:Sotochace JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- he did talk to me by e-mail. I think he's just new and rather dived in at the deep end and no lifejacket... I leave him some comments  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the high brooms article.

to be perfectly honest, i actually live in high brooms, so i think i should just give people a warning as to what it truly is - seeing as wikipedia is about giving factual information on a subject. thanks :) 90.215.18.207 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that is just your point of view - Wikipedia has to be written from a neutral point of view.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page :-)! StaticGull  Talk  23:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent, isn't he.. :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forced cool-down periods usually work pretty well :).StaticGull  Talk  23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So long as he's not on a dynamic address. Everyone should have a static address, but I think we need IPv6 for that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:TVP I'M ANGRY!!

Why do youkeep reverting?

What is the best place to keep that?

And why don't you read that it's NOT the test? And you let me to put in sand box, Sand box is deleted every 12 hours but the mission is keep running until the end of November.--125.25.81.65 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then create an account, and after 4 days and 10 edits (not difficult) you become autoconfirmed, and can create pages in your user space to build up projects - i.e. your personal sandbox, which won't be deleted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an account already. But I just not log in today because I'm not using the main computer right now.--125.25.81.65 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can log in at any computer, not just your main one.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this computer is owned by my dad. And if I log in my dad can hack me. (and my dad likes to know everything!)--125.25.81.65 (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell IE / FF not to remember the password, and you can log out when you finish  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is IE/FF?--125.25.81.65 (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IE - Internet Explorer; FF = Firefox.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safety first. If once there is no diaglog box that means MY DAD COULD HACK ANYTIME!!--125.25.81.65 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Telewizja Polska Can I delete the last section?

I want to delete it until the answer comes--125.25.81.65 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. What a mess of a talk page. It should only be for discussions. Let me have a go at sorting it out.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have beat me to it...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadve You are not even an administrator so stop claiming to be one.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones&oldid=324945765"