User talk:Anonimu/Complete Works/Tom 1 (2009)

Ban suspended

The Ban Appeal Sub Committee has decided to provisionally suspend your ban on the following conditions:

1. that you are mentored by AGK
2. that you are subject to 1RR revert parole
3. that you are subject to civility parole
4. and you behave at all times impeccably.

This suspension may be rescinded at any time and the community ban reinstated by majority vote of ArbCom if you are in breach of any of the above conditions.

For the Arbitration Committee

 Roger Davies ^talk 13:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Open letter from mentor

Thanks for your help in resolving my situation. Is there any thing I should do as part of the first conditon for my unban ("that you are mentored by AGK")?

Hi Anonimu,

My impression thus far is that you are a clueful and reasonable editor, and so I don't think there is much that I'll need to do to fill my role as mentor. Generally, I would encourage you: to edit in a friendly and professional manner; to take care to edit neutrally and sensibly; and to pursue discussion (and not resort to edit warring) when an editor makes a change you disagree with.

If you, at any time, find yourself in a problematic situation on the project, please do seek my assistance: I can be contacted on my talk page or over e-mail (messages sent over either media should receive a prompt response).

My very best wishes in the coming months.

AGK 14:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Long time no see

Long time no see. Let's hope we can work together more professionally this time around. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 18:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's get started

I hope you'll find out I'm a bit more knowledgeable about Romanian topics now that I've acquired a more thorough interest of Romania via a personal contact.

Traian Băsescu. A controversial politician; the article on his criticism had ten separate sections, plus footnotes. What are your considerations in merging it into Traian Băsescu#Criticism? It's a biographical article; I don't think it's a suitable place for discussing ten controversies in depth. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 07:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

1. The removal of the criticism sections amounted to whitewashing; none of his numerous wrongdoings were left in the article.
2. There's a Wikipedia policy that says we shouldn't have separate criticism articles, especially when the biographical article presents the person as an angel. That's called POV-fork.
3. George W. Bush and Silvio Berlusconi are much more important leaders and are much more criticized, but both have a fairly developed criticism section in their "biography" articles (even if they are called "public image" or "controversies"). The only article comparable with the one of TB was Osama bin Laden, which had a 2 line criticism section in the main article, with the rest in a separate article.
4. Other Romanian politicians have extensive criticism sections (such as Adrian Nastase and Ion Iliescu). Why should Basescu be different?

Anonimu (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Map of Wallachia, 1390

În 1390, Mircea nu stăpânea toate acele teritorii. Vezi un pic detaliile acestei probleme în articolul românesc. Dacă mai adaugi pe hartă feudele Bran şi Bologa (deşi cred că ultima e în afara hărţii) harta ar cam reprezenta extinderea maximă a teritoriului Ţării Româneşti (incluzând feudele), petrecută după cca. 1404. Nu ar fi rău să treci pe hartă şi alte puncte importante din sistemul defensiv al lui Mircea: cetăţile Amlaş, Turnu (Măgurele), Giurgiu, Hârşova şi Branul, sau aşezări importante dpdv economic: Brăila, Slănic (Prahova), Ocnele Mari, Baia de Aramă. --Alex:D (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nu zic că nu există şi alte opinii, părerea mea era ca harta să devină valabilă pentru toată domnia lui Mircea, nu doar pentru anul 1390. Este foarte bună ideea ta cu zonele difuze. În ceea ce priveşte Banatul de Severin, o să vezi hărţi străine care îl împing până la Olt. Total neadevărat. Graniţa e bună cum ai pus-o tu. Mă mai gândesc zilele astea ce ar mai putea include ca să fie mai bună. De exemplu locul bătăliilor. Dar nu voi putea să editez SVG-ul pentru că nu ştiu cum să păstrez zonele difuze (dacă îl modific, ele dispar). --Alex:D (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Eu folosesc Corel 12 iar zonele difuze ori mi le face PNG-uri incorporate in SVG, ori le face pline. Eu ma gandesc ca Branul a intrat in posesie cu tot cu drumul care duce din Tara Romaneasca spre el, deci vama s-a mutat mai spre nord. --Alex:D (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

It was a surprise seeing you back on Wikipedia, seeing as I had forgotten about you entirely. In retrospect, I think that your ban came along because you were too invested in your political views that it affected your editing. However, with the maturation of the project and your editing attitude, I hope that you can put that behind you. The ArbCom certainly have faith in you if they unbanned you. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania–Romania relations

Can you help find sources for Lithuania–Romania relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Calm it

You should now revert to your previous approach of editing without causing drama by disengaging from interacting with DC76. I do not think the discussion you are having with him is likely to benefit either of you. I should remind you that if you are regularly seen to be disrupting more often than you contribute helpfully, your ban will be re-instated. If you like, I can ensure that your talk page remains quiet for a couple of days, to give you some room to breath. But, in any case, please: calm it. AGK 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Anonimu

Moved from User talk:Roger Davies#User:Anonimu  Roger Davies ^talk

User_talk:Anonimu#Ban_suspended. I am afraid there are more problems. Just the things over the last 24 hours (if you go back 2 weeks, there are many more of them):

• "subject to 1RR revert parole"
  • Demographics of Moldova: 12:34, 23 July 2009, 01:16, 24 July 2009
• "behave at all times impeccably"
  • Traian Basescu, IMHO, huge BLP violations, turning the WP article into a Criticism article (at one point more than 50% of the article was criticism. Then when you go bit by bit through the sources, you find huge discrepancies. But when you correct them and use those refs to expand the article, you get reverted by Anonimu.)
  • Talk:Moldova: again making fainted accusations that others are Nazi policy sympathizers (see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned)

Please, don't believe my words or the diffs I provided, ask also User:Biruitorul, User:Dahn, User:Vecrumba.

P.S. No matter how much patience you show with Anonimu, you get whole tables deleted because he is too lazy to add one more cell, or using refs that say "black" to support "white" (as in Soviet occupations, where Anonimu used a Time magazine article to support his sentence that Romania was a Nazi Ally since 1939, while the country changed suddenly from British-French Ally to German Ally on July 4th, 1940, as one can find in the issues of the same Time magazine, of Anonimu had the patience to read. Not to mention that he learned this in history classes.)

Dc76\^talk 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(Commenting here as the editor appointed by the arbitration committee to be Anonimu's mentor.) Perhaps I may simply be being dense, but, in every example posed above, I do not find there to be any problematic conduct:

1. Demographics of Moldova 1RR: The first edit was not a revert by Anonimu (but rather an addition of a synthesis tag that had not, insofar as I can see, recently been removed by another editor). The second edit was indeed a revert, but as it stands alone, the 1RR restriction has not been broken: Anonimu would have to make two reverts in order for his 1RR restriction to be violated.
2. Talk:Moldova nazi sympathisers comment: I am afraid that I don't agree that this comment is a veiled suggestion that other participants in that thread are "nazi sympathisers", although I would remind Anonimu that statements such as "Shall I remind you all how it ended?" are far from conducive to a friendly editing environment.
3. Traian Băsescu: Could you please provide diffs to specific instances of the behaviour you have narrated?
4. Anonimu messing up article tables: The edit you've provided does not contain any poor formatting, from what I can see.

I would caution Anonimu against straying at all in a direction that could warrant his ban being reconsidered, but also invite Dc76 to either satisfactorily rebut my (above) evaluation of his complaint or to rescind his allegations. (On a side note: If Roger would prefer to have this thread moved to another page—Anonimu's or mine, as preferred—then he is welcome to direct us so.)

Respectfully, AGK 14:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll punctually reply to every accusation:

• • the above editor should make himself aware of the meaning of the term "revert" in the WP terminology. Making an edit, and then reverting another editor to that edit you made is exactly that: 1 revert. However I have no idea how to call removing a tag that warns the readers that the article and the reference say different things.
  • Dc76 should also read the WP policy called WP:BLP, and see that as long as all accusations are strictly attributed to reputable sources, WP has done its job. The problem comes when the source says "drinking" and an WP editor, let's call him Dc76, writes "holding a drink". See more in that article's talk page about why reliable sources shouldn't be removed from an article just because they present a not-so-positive view of the subject.
  • The so-called "accusation of being Nazi policy sympathizers" is just a gross assumption of bad faith. Unless he considers that Churchill was also one of the "Nazi policy sympathizers" just because he supported a certain pseudoscientific theory that was prevalent in the US and Western Europe during the interwar era.
  • I guess the editor is referring to me summarizing Time's "the Kingdom of Rumania last week signed a trade treaty with the Third Reich which, in effect, converted Rumania from an independent nation to a German dependency. In no instance of modern times has one State made such humiliating, far-reaching economic concessions to another as Rumania's King Carol II made in Bucharest last week to Dr. Helmuth Wohlthat, Führer Hitler's traveling salesman."link as "In March 1939 Romania concluded a treaty with Nazi Germany that virtually transformed int into a German dependency,"diff when he is talking about "using refs that say 'black' to support 'white' "

The above user just seems to have trouble with me introducing reliable sources that happen to contradict the unreferenced opinions he (or others supporting his POV) introduced in WP, and requesting him to attribute sources and not to interpret them to fit his POV.Anonimu (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AGK, you are right, I would like to withdraw my accusation of Anonimu breaking 1RR. The first edit was not a revert. Anonimu is very careful with 1RR, and he does reverts only after 24 hours pass after his previous reverts. Formally, I cannot see anything he broke in regard to 1RR, and I am sorry I claimed that. I was desperate that Anonimu follows me and edits articles I edit after I edit them. If you look at his contribs, you can see that most edits he does (>50%) are edits after my edits. It prevents me from concentrating on new tasks because I have to go back and explain everything to Anonimu, as it happened for example here.

Another issue is Anonimu making edits to support Stalinist historiography POV, like in Soviet occupations, where he edited claiming that Romania was a Nazi Ally since 1939, while the country was since July 4th, 1940, in the wake of the Fall of France (22 June) and Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (28 June). In 1939 there was a serious clash between Germans and British over the control of Romania's economy (especially, b/c it was the only major European oil supply at the time). Both Britain and Germany have used covert operations and bribing of politicians. The treaty signed in 1939 is when Germany seemed to have an upper hand, and the reaction in Western press was obviously non-friendly (in interpretation, but totally accurate in reporting the facts). The economic dependency on Germany only came after September 1940. Putting it before 1939's Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was crucial for the Soviet propaganda since WWII. This is why Anonimu's edit strike me as obvious provocation. And, although personally I support Brits' interventions in Romania, I believe we must be honest and not pretend more of the economic treaty signed in 1939 between Romania and Germany, when all historians say otherwise: politically and militarily Romania remained an Ally of France and Britain until a new government was sworn in on July 4th, 1940. BTW, when Germany attacked Poland in September 1939 (after the economic treaty), it was Poles that convinced Brits that a formally neutral Romania is more important for Poland, as it allowed safe delivery of Birtish military hardware from the Black Sea to the Polish border without the thread of German bombardments. It was only when the Soviet joined the war on September 17th, 1939, that Polish defense in the Romanian bridgehead was impossible. This is all very well known to Anonimu, and his edit in Soviet occupations comes IMHO with a desire to add some Soviet historiography POV.

These two things: Anonimu following me, and Anonimu making pro-Stalinist edits, is what got me in exasperation. But I do admit that he has not broken formally any 1RR (at least not that I know of) and has tried to chose his language to be civil. I sincerely hope that it would be possible for you two to convince Anonimu to try to change this behavior. Otherwise, the course of action that I can see is to withdraw from every article he edits, and let his edits accumulate and then start an RfC after several months when there is more compelling evidence. I don't like all these procedures, in truth I hate them, because they eat valuable time from editing content. Therefore I came to complain to you before having a formal list against Anonimu, hoping that he might be listening to you.

• About tables, I mean this, when he erased a whole table instead of making a small adjustment (ignore in your mind the intermediate edit by Vecrumba). This was repeated in Education in Moldova, and in tagging of a section in Demographics of Moldova, b/c he is lazy to edit in detail.
• Traian Basescu - even now, he doesn't stop. And now I am "officially" withdrawn from that article. I have had enough, this is too much for me. Let Anonimu claim Basescu bought an apartment on Mars and conspired with ET against Tariceanu. If such things are allowed in BLPs of acting presidents without anyone jumping in, this is not complain about Anonimu, the fault is then of the Wikipedia system, which can not have a group of people monitoring 300-500 BLPs.
• about Anonimu's comment in Talk:Moldova, which I called him calling others "nazi sympathisers comment", I do apologize, I overreacted. He did not call anyone openly Nazi sympathizer. He just brought in out of the blue a mention about Nazis. The substrate of this is that before Anonimu was banned, he came up with a picture on his user page which suggested people he disagrees with in WP are Nazi and are after him to get him. I am sorry that my reaction to this is subjective: to almost every mention or allegation about Nazi (generally out of the blue) when in conversation in which I am part of, I cannot but remember that picture. He makes no effort to avoid mention of Nazi or their practice in contexts when Nazi are not involved at all. And I admit that when I see Anonimu's signature and something about Nazi I feel disturbed. I confess to you that this is because I grew up in Moldova during the Soviet time, when everyone who dared say anything against the Communist system was labeled Fascist (even if you are just a kid). They like(d) to present everything as Communists (the good guys) against Fascists (the bad guys), and "if you are not with us, you are against us", hence a Fascist, hence a cockroach. I am very sorry that I let my subjectivity about this, but in my view (hopefully wrong) Anonimu is promoting the exact same ideology. But, the last word is: I am sorry for my overreaction. He said it vaguely, he did not say anything specific. Dc76\^talk 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been witness to the classic way of dealing by Dc76: I bring a reputable source supporting a point and then he goes pages about "how it really happened" (no sources, of course, because he only speaks the truth) and accuses me of spreading propaganda and being behind an evil plan to transform WP in some kind of Pravda.

Yeah, it happens quite often that I edit articles after DC76 edits them, but this only has two causes: 1. Dc76 edits articles that are on my watchlist. 2. Dc76 edits them in a way contrary to WP policies and guidelines (i.e. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NPOV). He just doesn't seem to like using sources (mainly because there aren't any reliable ones to support him), and even in the instances he uses some, he manipulates the wording so that he gets an idea contrary to the one exposed by the source.

I see Dc76 keeps bragging about some tables he added. A quick look at that article shows that the paragraph above was a table with exactly the same information (i.e. ethnic groups, but with more detail, and less straining to the eye). The other article (Demographics of Moldova, if you use an older browser it may break it), with some huge tables, is not only making a POVish original synthesis of a reliable source, but by his hugeness goes against WP:NOT#STATS.

Dc76 has some serious problems with understanding what WP:BLP stands for. The article pretty clearly says who said what, and only takes into consideration mainstream reputable publication (no blogs, tabloids or obscure local newspapers) and public declarations of high-level officials reported by reputable publications (i.e. such as the acting prime minister and the acting president publicly accusing each other of lobbying for certain commercial companies)

I can't stop wondering how come Dc76 is so sensitive about anything may have the wildest relation to Nazism, but he comes here, on an arbitrators talk page, and calls me "pro-Stalinist" and accuses me "promoting the exact same [Stalinist] ideology" (after asking him about 20 times to stop making such accusations). Of course, he can make all the personal attacks he wants, unfortunately nothing will happen to him... just that repeating a lie enough times will make other editors think it's true.Anonimu (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid my comments here are not helpful, because they incite Anonimu.

Now he accuses me of not using sources! That is unbelievable. I quit. I beg, DGG and Roger Davis, have a look at Demographics of Moldova. How can one possibly come up with such numbers, so many details. They are taken from the webpage of the National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova, which is given at references at the bottom of the article. Just click the link and you find hundreds of files on every topic you wish, from population to education to number of justices and criminal cases to a tone of economic data. Is it so difficult to look at those files? Shorter details are from CIA factbook for 2008, which you can download for free. No, Anonimu has to accuse me of not using sources. I have added hundreds of sources in WP articles. Just look at any article related to Moldova. A good 1/3 of the sources on average are added by me. This is not happening! I am flabbergasted! To lie in your eyes?! This is unbelievable! I have started this in order to have a more systematic outlook of available sources. I simply haven't had time to populate it, because there are hundreds, if not thousands, and it must be done in a systematic way. Have a look at this list (this is not even 10%, and mostly secondary). I cannot believe I am given now the task to prove I have used sources. This is work for days if not weeks at a row!! Why do I have to prove I am not guilty? On the other hand, just read the ONE source Anonimu used lately in Soviet occupations (the TIME magazine article), and see how he twisted it in the article.

Then, the table I added in Demographics of Moldova: it added more info (in addition to ethnic groups, also native language and language of daily first use). No, Anonimu has to look in the eyes and say I have added no new info! This is unbelievable! If he thinks some info is repeated, erase that particular part. Come on, he obviously knows how to do this. But it is more energy-effective to just blame me here instead of actually doing some work.

About Stalinism: He never asked me to not compare his edits with Stalinist ideology. In fact he never said there is anything wrong with Stalinist ideology. Anonimu, din't you have on your user page a "this user is a communist" banner for a year or more, and only removed it about the time when you were banned? What did I comment during the RfC about that, when others accused you simply of being a communist? I said there is nothing wrong with it! I said the only problem are your edits, not your views! Please, be so kind and show me one instance where one of my edits supports anything about Nazi ideology. You ARE a communist, while I am NOT a Nazi. And I mean (also) editorially: I have done a lot of edits for which a Nazi would be happy to squize my throat. I am claiming that you have done many edits for which Iosif Vissarionovich would be very happy. The one in Soviet occupations is a prime example. And I repeat again, I have problem only with some of your edits, not with your real-life sympathies.

About BLP, I quit editing Traian Basescu. Do with this article as you wish, I don't care anymore. This is too much for me to take. Attacks against my edits on so many articles.

I need to calm down, so I think I will stay away for a while from WP in general. I am sorry, guys, that I have brought this debate on your userpage. I should have thought ahead and only come with formal things. Sorry, my fault. If you have any advice to give me, please use my talk page. As for the issue I brought here, you can dismiss it. Obviously, I wasn't prepared. I thought it could be solved with a short advice from you to Anonimu, but I was wrong. He is more vociferous here than in talk pages of articles. And I provoked him. Me discussing with him is clearly not helpful. I should have known that, I should have known it would simply turn into a 100K non-purpose discussion. My bad. I am really sorry for your time. Dc76\^talk 16:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Dc76... there's nothing to incite me... you've just proven that you have actually very little idea about WP policies, and now you're backing down to escape scrutiny. I never said you don't use sources at all, I've just said that the ones you use are gravely misquoted to impose a POV (such as adding Moldovans and Romanians data from the source because in your opinion those 2 million who declare themselves Moldovans are too ignorant to know they are "actually" Romanians). Also the extent of statistics you introduced in that article not only violates WP:NOT, but, considering the large amount of data copied from the source, it may very well fall under foundation's rules about copyvios. Having compiled a list of sources is really of no help, unless you actually used those sources in articles... which you haven't. So that doesn't really help your argument. As for the Time magazine, I quoted above the source and my text on WP, so anybody can see how much I "twisted" it.

I asked Dc76 numerous times to stop commenting on my supposed hidden goals (such as here, here (last para). here here), yet he keeps going on about me being a "Stalinist", a supporter of "Iosif Vissarionovich". My political views are irrelevant here, and as long as I use sources that are widely considered reputable, I could be a member of cat-eating cult that worships Jay Leno and practices mass whistling, nobody has any right to call me names, especially one as degrading as "Stalinist" (at least according to policy).

If Roger Davies had enough of this conversation on his user talk, I offer my talkpage to host any further discussion.Anonimu (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonimu, in the 4 diffs you present, you asked me to stop disagreeing with your edits, not to stop making comparisons with the Stalinist propaganda POV on the same issues. OK, if you now asked me, I will no longer compare your edits with Stalinist propaganda POV (which in my personal humble opinion are surprisingly identical).

If you also look more carefully in my replies before your said comments, you see time and again requests to stop talking generally and discuss specific content, specific edits. And in reply to those you (imho, hypocritically) asked me every of the 4 times to stop discussing editors.

As for what you call my "opinion [that] those 2 million who declare themselves Moldovans are too ignorant to know they are "actually" Romanians"", I never said that. The problem is that the experts harshly criticized the 2004 census (see its WP article), esp. in regard to presentation and interpretation of ethnicity data by the Communist government. The people are not ignorant, don't put words in my mouth, pls. In fact, once Dahn said exactly that about Moldovans, and I have taken him to AN/I. Although no action was taken, his reputation had suffered, and he understood his mistake. That he understood his mistake to call a whole people idiots is what I sought all along, and in retrospective I am glad no action was taken because he is a very good content contributor. It took some time until our relationship returned to normal. In fact I think this is the only case when Dahn ever stepped wrong. So, pls, don't say I call myself ignorant about what I declare myself. If I said that, I would have been ignorant #1. Dc76\^talk 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In all of those edits I asked you to respect WP policy, i.e. to stop using ad hominems instead of arguments... that means not to discuss editors perceived opinions, but their edits... You aren't allowed to call people names, be it "Stalinist", "religious fundamentalist" or "Gipsy"... it's a pity that after all these years of editing WP you haven't learned such basic fact (that is not even specific to WP, but is a general guideline in RL civil resolution of disagreements). Your insistence in calling me a "Stalinist" is baffling, as is the lack of administrative action against such disgraceful acts.

Some part of the census result were criticised by one group, but it was a pretty mild criticism, and moreover that group acknowledged that in the majority of cases the census takers accurately and neutrally registered information from citizens. This doesn't give you no right to take a source and pick some information you like, combine it with another, and then present to the reader a conclusion which is not even remotely hinted in the source.

It is not considered polite to spread negative information about editors behind their backs. If you want to criticise Dahn, please make him aware of this discussion. (Knowing both of you, I doubt your baseless accusations ever did anything to damage his reputation).Anonimu (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I never called you Stalinist (although I did mention once above in this very discussion that you never said there is anything wrong with Stalinism, which you were not at all quick to reply to), I only compared some of your edits with the stance of the Stalinist propaganda on the same very issues. There is a big difference! But since you asked me, I will no longer do even that.

It was not "one group" that criticized certain things about the census (the ethnicity was not the only issue, because in many cases the census was copied from police records and people were never interviewed), it is THE international expert group invited to watch it. I challenge you to do better than I did in Demographics of Moldova. Yes, I know, that is DOZENS OF HOURS of work! (just one example: because all %-ages are given only up to 0.1%, while I indicated them up to 0.01%)

Where did I spread negative information about Dahn? I said he is a very good contributor. About his reputation, it is he that complained to me that my AN/I had tarnished it. But his approach was so that it was obviously clear that he no longer stand by the word "idiots". In fact I want to praise him for his ability. So, I would be very happy to know that his reputation (turns out) was not damaged b/c of that isolated incident.

NOTICE: I will be away today, and in 2 days I will be on a wikibreak. Dc76\^talk 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You expose some disturbing double standards. I make a reference to a theory that was adopted also by Nazi Germany and you say I call people Nazis, but you openly say I spread Stalinist propaganda and I support Stalinist ideology and then there's a "big difference" ?

And that group said it was generally OK (I don't care about conspiracy theories). If it weren't discouraged by several WP polices and guidelines, I could do it.. you may have invested "dozen of hours", but that's only because you don't know to fully use the functions of modern computers. That table could have been made in less than a hour (let's say three if you are new to technology, two of them just to read a tutorial)

I have no idea about what incident you were talking about, but attributing bad words to someone and claiming you somehow put him in a bad light at ANI is not considered a civilised thing.Anonimu (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

- Romania in April 1939 was not "adopted" neither by Hitler, nor by Stalin.

- The "big difference" is that I have problem with some of your edits. But I have not characterized you as an individual. In fact I have respect for you as an individual: if you were a politician during 1930s-1980s, you would be a serious force to recon with. You personal abilities are superior to many of modern Romanian politicians. But, I still have a problem with some of your edits, when you cite a source saying A and you write B in the article.

- Thank you for your "kind words" about my computer abilities.

- I have not attributed anything to Dahn that is not his. And by the way it was ONE word, not many, something that he never used afterwards. But in the end, it did not damage him, while our relationship had to gain from that experience. That has nothing to do with you, that is between him and me. I gave it as an example to Roger and AGK to point out that I do not say that Moldovans were ignorant.

- About the census correctness in other aspects. Of course! That's why I use its data a lot, which BTW is copyright free given appropriate citation of the Statistics Bureau. Dc76\^talk 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about eugenics.

When you say I support "Stalinist ideology" you are talking about me, not about my edits. Calling me a propagandist certainly has nothing to with content editing, it is just a base ad hominem. Until now you haven't brought any such case when the source said something and I wrote otherwise in WP... the case about the Time magazine is pretty obvious: I just added the date, the rest of the sentence being almost quoted word-by-word from the original.

Not all of WP editors have the same technical abilities. But some tasks are simply too tedious to do manually. That's why we have bots in WP (and that's why MS Excel or OO.o Calc allow you to compute percentages to the 6th decimal for a huge list in just 2 minutes)

We have your word against a person who's not aware of this discussion and can't defend himself.

Attribution is not an excuse to publish unlimited info from a source to WP. If you want to do this, you have to prove that the reference is in public domain or has a WP-compatible license (such as a non-NC flavour of CC). Also when you copy info from a source, you do it the right way, not by mixing some disparate facts to impose a POV. And you read WP:NOT before, to make sure you're not making WP an indiscriminate collection of information in the processAnonimu (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not say you support Stalinist ideology. (Just curious, do you? Feel free not to answer.) I said "your edits support the same stance on several key issues related to Moldova as the Stalinist ideology". You misquoted the Time magazine article, IMHO you changed the meaning of the paragraph, as you definitively knew that Romania became Germany's ally in July 1940, not in April 1939. (You knew at least b/c this it was written in the version you modified.)

I have no "word against" Dahn. I have a lot of words to support him.

BTW, I am tired of this discussion. This is my last post here. Have a very nice day! I am going on a wikibreak tomorrow.Dc76\^talk 18:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I do not think this discussion is conducive to a harmonious editing atmosphere. With that in mind, and considering also the fact that no evidence has yet been presented to demonstrate a serious conduct problem on Anonimu's part, I would suggest to both DC76 and Anonimu that this thread is taken no further. AGK 22:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Could not agree more. I am sorry I started this discussion. The mistake is all mine. Dc76\^talk 02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I notice I was mentioned in this discussion, and, while I don't especially mind that, I have to say I am not at all pleased with how Dc76 has chosen to refer to an incident in the past. For one: yes, I have mentioned my reputation back then; but that was in reference to the fact that he had specifically taken my words out of context in an attempt to tarnish my reputation by making me look like I was saying something objectionable (something which, as he knows, I myself would find objectionable). I have also said that it may have succeeded in tarnishing my reputation (only because I saw some Romanian editors quoting his unsustainable attention in a vacuous attempt to depict me as a racist, only because it fitted with their logic). It has perhaps tarnished my reputation only to the measure where people are gullible enough or lazy enough not to check the matter themselves, and take something at face value - I suppose many editors will do that no matter what, and, thanks to Dc, those gentlemen and I had a reason to interact that I could happily have done without. In other words: yes, he has tarnished my reputation - not because of something I've said, but because he propagated what was in effect a lie, a piece of slander, a ball of mud slinged my way. I'm frankly disappointed that he continues to misrepresent the issue in such a tabloid manner.

As for my original statement in its real form, I stand and will stand by it. If someone expects me to think that a large mass people are unable to comprehend what the word "ethnicity" means and would want to say something else but don't, they would all have to be idiots. That is the only scenario into which that would work (although, come to think of it now, they could also be insane). If it was not clear the first (second, third etc.) time around, that explanation is by definition unlikely. But Dc will have to understand eventually that it is the only explanation for his theory, which means not that the Moldovans in question are idiots, but that his theory is flawed. Or else it is not me saying that those people are idiots, it's him.

Needless to say, I don't answer to just any editor about my how I use my vocabulary and why, and my use of the word "idiot" is regulated only by my free will and common sense. Dahn (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging

Then, you should merge this Croatian–Hungarian Agreement also. --Dvatel (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Harta

Salutare! Am observat că vă ocupaţi de hărţi. Aş avea şi eu nevoie de una a Țării Româneşti din perioada 1220-1247 (cu cnezatele şi voievodatele). Sau măcar să le adaugaţi pe harta aceasta. Ştiu că e la o diferenţă de 100 de ani, dar... Mă puteţi ajuta?Crokis (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Multumesc. Ca reper, iata articolul scris de mine: [1]Crokis (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sursa mea (Sergiu Columbeanu, Cnezate si voievodate romanesti, ed. Albatros, Bucuresti, 1973 ce citeaza lucrarea lui Şt. Olteanu, Evolutia procesului de organizare statala la est si la sud de Carpati in secolele IX-XIV, in "Studii", XXIV (1971), pp. 763-766) enumera urmatoarele asezari existente conform datelor arheologice: Radoveanu (regiunea Arges-Neajlov), Zimnicea, Silistra, Dridu, Bucureşti, Bucov, Slon (Prahova), Cetăţenii de Vale (Argeş), Câmpulung si Curtea de Argeş. Cum pentru capitalele cnezatelor si voievodatelor nu exista surse arheologice, cred ca acestea sunt cele mai importante asezari din acea perioada.Crokis (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Daca este terminata varianta in romana si e uploadata la commons...as vrea sa stiu:) Crokis (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)