User talk:Anonimu/Complete Works/Tom 3 (2010)

Happy New Year

There, I said it :). Things get tense, but there's no hard feelings, and I sincerely wish you a good coming year. Let's agree to disagree on the rest. Dahn (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I demand an explination

Care to explain why do you keep removing ([1], [2], [3]) my new map which is sourced and quite accurate, based on Census data from Romania, Moldavia and nearby countries?
I do not understand why you are removing that perfectly good map while an outdated map like this seems to be staying just fine on a lot of articles despite being unsourced and heavily disputed.
If you'te talking about this, then I must mention that this is not relevant here since all the sources refer to the same thing (proportion of Romanians, Vlachs or Moldavians).
It is the same thing as on the Romanians article, you have n sources, each stating the number of Romanians in a country and the article then shows a total of the Romanians in the world. Does that violate the rule?
This makes me think that you have something against me and/or try to get on the good side of Hungarian users like User:Hobartimus.
I await your explinations!
Scooter20 (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to play along (even though I clearly stated Romanians, Vlachs or Moldavians and did not labeled them all as Romanians, even thought they all speak Romanian).

In that fashion, shouldn't there be a lot of cleanup to do on Wikipedia, starting with this image, among others.

I mean, you remove my own image but you allow much worse, outdated and unsourced images to thrive. I do not undestand that!

Regarding WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. So if let's say 2 or more articles/images are "bad". It's ok to remove just one of them and let the others stay. Is that what you're trying to say?

I'm starting to think that you don't want "my" maps on the articles, regardless of their quality and correctness!

Scooter20 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Negroid

I am not sure what you are talking about. I merely posted a mugshot of a black man and wrote in the caption that "Many American criminals exhibit negroid facial features." This is a fact. Wikipedia is about facts and it should not hide facts for the sake of a misguided political correctness agenda. I have reverted the page. If you have a legitimate reason for removing the picture please explain, otherwise do not vandalize Wikipedia. Thank you. --68.118.202.49 (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for this "fact"? Offliner (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

United States Department of Justice has statistics of race of perpetrators of crimes.--68.118.202.49 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't. You need to have the sources, present them in a neutral way and you have no intent to do so, so you're blocked, IP. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're still here, you should read more about inserting an original synthesis of published sources in Wikipedia articles before making any edits in the future (after your block expires).Anonimu (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Surprise (hope it's not premature)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For writing a much better article on Costi Ioniţă compared to the ro.wiki one. Pcap ping 20:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK

It qualifies. You took it from 333 B (56 words) "readable prose size" to 1961 B (328 words). I was told it would not be processed until the AfD closes though. Pcap ping 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Metropolis of Bessarabia

The first image is wrong

The correct territory under its jurisdiction is the purple area from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romanian_Orthodox_Church11.svg (Umumu (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

Trying... trying... nope... seems I'm still not able to read minds.Anonimu (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ziceam ca teritoriul Mitropoliei Basarabiei continua si in sudul Republicii Moldova, in Ucraina, cum se vede aici http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romanian_Orthodox_Church11.svg deci prima imagine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metropolis_of_bessarabia.svg este gresita. Este Mitropolia Basarabiei, nu a Rep Moldova

En fait, selon le droit canonique, la carte est totalement faux. Il ne peut y avoir deux évêques orthodoxes dans la même ville, donc je pense que la carte ne montre que la défaite de l'esprit chrétien par l'ethnophyletisme.Anonimu (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

Following a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

My political leanings

It's complicated. I'm a registered Liberal Democrat, but I'm supportive of the Liberal-Conservative coalition, as I find Labour to be out of touch with the public, and the Conservatives to be a more egalitarian party. I generally believe in the state to provide for its citizens—especially in that a citizen should have housing, healthcare, and sustenance at the very least—, but to not entangle in social matters, to keep a gentle but firm watch on private enterprise, and to only enter military conflict where necessary; i.e. I found Afghanistan to be legitimate, but Iraq to be not. And I find myself weakly pro-Israeli: that the conflict is six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other, but that Israel is disproportionately criticised for human rights violations; I mean, seriously, I find it inconceivable that Israel is more evil than China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran combined. Part of that last one stems from idiotic "communism is trendy" students at the university I attend; actually talking to real Palestinians on campus, I find more agreement with them from pro-Palestinian protesters. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet nobody argued that these options disqualify you from editing Wikipedia... so why are you trying to disqualify others for their political opinions?(of course, we're not talking about fascists, Holocaust deniers or defenders of of Pol Pot's democide). Anonimu (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they disqualify me from editing, but the act of introducing bias as a result of them may do. I expressly try to edit Wikipedia as apolitically as possible. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

tatarbunar

salut, am vazut ultimile modificari facute de dvs la aceasta pagina. pot sa va spun ca sunt putin cam deplasate. doresc sa nu mai stergem unul altuia adaugarile si sa le discutam aici sau pe pagina de discutii de la Tatarbunary Uprising. imi este mai usor in romana. multumesc.Prometeu (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

George Macovescu

Hi there. Thank you for your additions on George Macovescu page. I just created an article on Avram Bunaciu. If possible, could you please see if you find any sources in Romanian indicating exact date of his death? Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Anonimu. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuscumbia (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Constantin Costa-Foru

check it out Constantin Costa-Foru!do you like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometeu (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring on Moldovans. In addition, you are now subject to an indefinite topic ban from WP:ARBMAC-related topics. This sanction has been recorded here Toddst1 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anonimu/Complete Works (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The above is a grossly misplaced block, and coming after a period of harassment by likely socks of a banned user comes as a "fuck off" from the Wikipedia community. Calling the editing pattern at Moldovans is gross misinterpretation of events, as every edit I made was reverted by a likely sock seemingly just for occasion to viciously bash me. This block is just enabling harassment, and sending me a message that I should take it quietly, just because three years ago I had a laxer interpretation of civility rules. See more about harassment and the likely, but undetectable by a simple RfCU, sock of a banned user at the ANI thread that seems to have bugged Toddst1 enough to issue a block

Decline reason:

It always takes two to make a revert war, and both sides are rather by definition being disruptive. I see nothing here indicating understanding that edit warring is unacceptable no matter who it is against or why. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's still an edit war, especially when under 1RR. You should note that the other editor has been blocked for their actions as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

it's not clear to me but this user may be still subject to Arbcomm sanctions. See block log. Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, just read ARBMAC. It says "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision." Since I received no warning (and I haven't edited Balkan topic for quite a while anyway), should I consider the "topic ban" just an error?Anonimu (talk)

I don't say I'm the purest editor ever. But issuing a one month long ban over an prolonged revert pattern when one of the users (not me), used the summaries to aggravate the other is overkill. Also, you may want to search the EEML archive (aka Wikipediametric - it has leaked on some site) for my name, and see strategies a user who hasn't edited in the last 9 months suggested should be used to get me banned. This may give you a further insight in the matters.Anonimu (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit to an ARBMAC topic was 16:51, 30 August 2010.

I cannot verify that you were ever issued an ARBMAC warning, so per your point, I will strike that. That being said. I find it hard to believe that you were unaware of ARBMAC.

However I will ask ARBCOMM if your latest fracas violates your parole. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: After consulting with one of the members of Arbcomm, I was told that the restrictions they had placed on this individual have now expired. Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OFFICIAL WP:ARBMAC WARNING

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Iacob Pistiner

Iacob Pistiner, what do you say about this one?Prometeu (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ministers of Foreign Affairs

Hi there, just wanted to let you know that the list of Ministers of Foreign Affairs is now complete with articles on all ministers created. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Inherited notability

With nobility, it's different from everything else: nobles are typically notable because of their noble titles, and most countries with a system of nobility allow those noble titles to be inherited. It's different from any other basis for notability, since one can't literally inherit other notability criteria. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just take it to AFD? Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

KITECH

The author's contest of the CSD was a lame excuse. I'll give it it three days and then I'll AfD.--Kudpung (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

comment retracted

I have retracted my previous comment for the record. Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Medgidia

Hi. I've noticed this edit you made in Medgidia. Do you happen to have a source or a reason for that? Thanks. — AdiJapan 10:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)