User talk:Anonimu/Complete Works/Tom 5 (2015)

WARNING
Stop reverting perfectly reasonable and cited edits of the Moldova article. You can give constructive criticism, comments and edits if your English level is at the level you say it is at. I am trying to improve the article and you are brainlessly labeling it as vandalism. If you continue your reverts, I will make sure this issue will escalate. Thank you. Dan Cojocari (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You can make maps and article about Italy and Spain Romanians, is not my problem. Til then come with arguments because all the regions wore lived by Romanians. You are acused of vandalism below, i stated only known facts, i give shit about Hungarian nationalists, 1918 borders do not reflect the history of the areas. So if you are so well informed, please take me to the right way with arguments. Until then your „oh is rong” is your opinion based on nothing. Vasile iuga (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
You reverted an edit on this article with the explanation "rv unsourced edit". Please note that this is the 10th sentence in that section, and only one has a source. People with biased agendas giving flimsy reasons for edits, especially low-effort reversions of articles that discourage new users from participating on the project, is a serious problem on Wikipedia and you are not helping at all. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:550E:1A12:AF33:E2CF (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All previous sentences made reference to basic facts: on this date the Soviet done this, on this other one did that. Unlike them, the edit I was reverting used vague wording, suggesting the border incident at Fantana Alba was the rule, rather than an isolated event. Such bold statements need to be backed by reliable sources, unlike plain dates describing movements of troops or official declarations.Anonimu (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pompiliu Ștefu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union of Patriots. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romanian general election, 1926, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peasants' Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Romanian general election, 1926/Federation of Socialist Parties from Romania
Hello Anonimu. You recently linked the "Social Democratic Party" that contested the 1926 elections to Federation of Socialist Parties from Romania, changing it to "Social Democrats". The problem is that the Federation of Socialist Parties from Romania article states (backed up by a reliable source) that the Federation did not contest any elections after 1922, so the articles now contradict each other. Could you clarify? Thanks, Number   5  7  21:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Federation itself did not contest, but all its members did run under the same electoral sign, and apparently shared at least past of the campaign costs. Nevertheless, modern Romanian sources I've seen only report a single aggregated result for all the constituent parties (SDP of Bukovina, SP of Transylvania and Banat, SP of Romania), which is exactly the figure our article attributed to the "Social Democratic Party", and generally associate this result with the Federation. Considering we don't have detailed results and we lack articles for two of the three constituent parties, I think it's best to link the Federation, even though it did not run under that name.Anonimu (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps we should mention that in the article? Perhaps "Although the federation did not contest any further elections, its members ran together in the 1926 elections, but failed to win a seat."? Were they the only three members? I'd like to expand the Federation article with a bit more detail about it. Cheers, Number   5  7  23:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've checked my sources, and I can't really say whether the Federation did participate or not as an entity. The source I was referring to in my original reply only states that each of the party managed the campaign separately and there was no country wide electoral programme of the Federation, which is not exactly as saying each party ran separately. I actually found another source that says they did exactly that for the Chamber, providing the number of counties ran by each of the components; the same source however says the Federation ran two candidates for the Senate, and its not entirely clear to me whether this is just a shorthand. The published election results only mention a "Socialist Party", so it appears that, legally, there was a single entity associated with all the socialist lists. Looking through the press of the day doesn't clarify things: the Federation issued an official statement that its executive committee heard from the constituent parties and decided not to join in an alliance with any other party; it also decided on its own electoral sign, the triangle. Reports from electoral meetings are confusing as well: one article speak about a meeting of the "Socialist Party" (in the territory under the technical jurisdiction of the PSR), but the first reported speaker talks urges the audience to vote for the "Social Democratic Party". I also checked the membership of the Federation; there were four members: Socialist Party of Romania (known as Social Democratic Party of Romania between 1921 and 1922), Socialist Party of Transylvania, Socialist Party of Banat (the two appear to have become different organisations by the time the Federation was created) and the Social-Democratic Party of Bukovina (PSR may have had theoretical jurisdiction also over Bessarabia, but the proletarian over left there was firmly communist and, thus, outside its reach). Hence, "Socialist Party" may have been a pars pro toto for the Federation. Anonimu (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Mărășești
Hello - there is a dispute about the casualty figures you added to the above article - can you supply a source? Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)