User talk:Anonimu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mentioning Dacians in the introduction to Getae[edit]

Please see my comments at Deletion of mention of Dacians in intro. Grant | Talk 07:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

notes from the underground[edit]

there's a bell curve in everything, not just in iq, but in every characteristic. certain patterns can be identified within certain populations. cognitive science is not a fairytale. ur revolution is dead. at least its ideology used to be sort of sexy, but now, not even that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cei Trei (talkcontribs) 18:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You're over-generalizing. It's my understanding that many of the tests intended to measure subjective characteristics of the human personality are designed with the normal distribution in mind, so it's no surprise that, given sufficient samples, the results follow that distribution. The problem is that such numeric values are only relevant at the extremes (sometimes only at one of the extremes: a very low IQ is a much better predictor than a very high IQ). Furthermore, cognitive science can perfectly explain certain characteristics shared by groups of people by using much more tangible discriminators than the "nation": level of education, access to media, wealth, etc (incidentally, such characteristics are also the ones that define social class in most non-socialist societies). And rest assured I don't support ideas based on their ability to entice sexual gratification.Anonimu (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
We go there not to date, but to support our brothers across the river. Anyway, you wanna go clubbing? I have to warn you, though: that kind of social interaction is not my forte. (I live near Piata Sudului.) xoxoxo --Cei Trei (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I remember an arrow pointing to my residence, but when it comes to walk the walk...this will be remembered (in our history) as the time when we found out that you had no balls. Grow a pair. --Cei Trei (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
While you bum around with your hodlum "brothers", a guy who doesn't even speak Romanian does a better job at enriching WP's coverage of Moldavia's foremost symbol than you've ever had. When are you going to get back to actually contributing to the encyclopaedia?Anonimu (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

you have a capitalistic heart and a socialistic mind

social capital should be shared — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cei Trei (talkcontribs) 11:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess you don't know.
I do.Anonimu (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Anonimu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nicolae Ceaușescu[edit]


If you were genuinely interested in WP:CONSENSUS, you would have discussed your concerns on the talk page, rather than restoring one editor's POV edits, which unilaterally reversed the prevailing consensus. X4n6 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the conviction of Liviu Dragnea on the wiki page.[edit]

It clearly, happened, it deserves its own paragraph so it is not hidden. I am respecting the MoS.

Not only that, the original text was missing a reference, which now it has. What exactly in the MoS do you think I am not respecting? Because up until now, the your revert is very subjective, while my contribution provides more value to the original text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talkcontribs) 15:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talkcontribs) 23:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)