User talk:Aristeus01/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marius Sala (October 10)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Idoghor Melody were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marius Sala and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Marius_Sala Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Idoghor_Melody&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Marius_Sala reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  20:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries. I see this as valuable feedback on what an article should contain and how it should be referenced. Thank you for your time! Aristeus01 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment here. There may still be time for you to respond to the complaint and explain why you shouldn't be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston!
 * Unfortunately I saw your message to late and the decision was already made. I left a reply at @Black Kite's message detailing my reasoning for this case. Again, apologies I did not reply sooner and please take this message as a sign of my willingness to communicate.
 * Thank you for your time! Aristeus01 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems it is too late to reply (apologies, I had pressing business outside Wikipedia) and argue my case, so please allow me to reply here:
 * I will not argue against the block, as I will explain at the end, instead I want to make an appeal to the principles of Wikipedia.
 * The situation between myself and the other users mentioned here escalated before my previous warning. I appealed to wiki admins to mediate only to receive a warning myself. If I did not feel I was hounded and I was the disruptor why would I appeal to an admin? I also felt the admin decision then was short sighted but I went with it since I do not want to antagonize people that try to maintain objectivity. But apparently the situation has long gone out of control.
 * I took a month to cool of and stopped editing all together. After a month, checking on my contribution log I see the part in question from the article history of Transylvania missing. The discussion span two days and came to the conclusion that "Lavinia wrote a false info" ie the cited author, a reputable archaeologist, doesn't know what she is talking about, but the two editors do. Allow me to shed some light on the fine thinking here: the two users involved support the theory of Romanians immigration to nowadays Romania and often take steps to delete or censor info that contradicts their beliefs.
 * This steps include:
 * -systematically contradicting and arguing with other editors
 * 1
 * 2
 * -deleting paragraphs that contain information they dislike without taking steps into fixing it or finding other faults that they then present as the real reason for deletion
 * by user @gyalu22
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * by @OrionNimrod
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4 - please note here the user that supported deletion of the paragraph in question restored and reinforced the said paragraph while deleting information about demographics, in particular the one supporting Romanian majority
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7
 * All this examples are just quick notes from the last 6 months and do not include my edits or talks with the said users.
 * -revanchism - OrionNimrod's real reason for deleting the paragraph: "Earlier you removed "Pannonia" as offtopic in another chapter, now you like it???"
 * From my point of view their action was disruptive and in bad faith, equalling vandalism but I will not appeal against the block. Being off editing on a Wikipedia that is uncapable of detecting such subtle disruptive behaviours and decides against whistle-blowers is not a tragedy. My action is firmly rooted in the belief the system is being misused by some and the only option I had left given the last incident was WP:IGNORE. However I do not expect admins to jump and take my side, in fact I expect nothing to come out of this since yourself are the second person reasoning against my action in this very "rules are rules" way and "we don't do investigator work". I respect and understand your action, I argue here against a flooded system that keeps failing its principles and users, not against individual admins. Bottom line I consider my action in line with the principles of Wiki and I express my disappointment and frustration at the systems failures that lead so many users to leave and creates a toxic environment. Aristeus01 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a history student, I used Wikipedia a lot for my projects, but as I kept using it I noticed certain paragraphs would dissapear. What these paragraphs had in common is that the Hungarian histography disagrees with (even when German or British histography agrees). It appears to me that these paragraphs were removed out of nationalist desire rather than any desire for the betterment of Wikipedia. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you ended up in this situation because of me. I had no idea that there is some rule against this sort of behaviour. Pretty dumb rule if you ask me.
 * I cannot reply on your page while I am blocked but - if you haven't already - please apply for unblock. I feel the admin is being a bit too zealous and harsh, the rule he cited said " subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behaviour they are imitating"   WP:PROXYING so really you should get a week ban at most, although given that you are brand new to this an explanation of the rules would have been more appropriate. Unfortunately I cannot appeal for you. This is a classic case of the policeman beating protestors because the boss paid for that uniform and stick and, by God, they will use it -  even the guy that reported me was pretty shocked, as I am now as well. Also, the admin reverted the edits to History of Transylvania (and protected the page, an action which I actually like) back to what the two guilty editors - in my opinion - wanted it to look like without taking any action against the break of 3RR I signalled earlier - I mean, come on, you can see from a plane they took ownership of that page.
 * This is what Wikipedia actually is, I'm afraid. When I joined early this year I had this user, @borsoka, continuously attacking my edits to the point I had to ask help from an admin. Apparently, he or she has been "initiating" new users like myself on how to become compliant with his/hers POV or be gone, most recent example @User:Giray Altay - Wikipedia - another new user - and his/hers friends dropping in the talk page calling me "Randy in Boise" and so on. Then, as my editing grew it attracted more users like the one mentioned, if you understand what I mean, who interfered with my edits to the point I could not even concentrate on the editing anymore. When I reported this as well I got a warning because (drums rolling): if there are more editors with one opinion the minority editor should just shut up (and watch the quality of an article go down the drain). What I am trying to say is Wikipedia is not a nice academic environment, it's a s***show, and the admins are mostly powerless because they all live in fear of making the wrong decision or saying the wrong thing and getting penalties for it. There's no explaining and letting off with a warning, everybody just shoots from the hip. More of an Animal Farm sort of environment. So if you are in any way disappointed, please don't be - unless you are willing to either degrade yourself and live in fear of being reported while at the same time having to accept mediocrity or you take on the system - there is no pleasure in editing Wikipedia as it stands, it actually is a very frustrating and disturbing process. This is not a happy place. Aristeus01 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite please rather check my edits yourself than believe this user of proved bad faith. For instance, let's see this example of his: . I removed that recently added part because the citation was irrelevant and didn't say what the text did. I pinned @ZZARZY223, the writer, on the talk page but they (ZZARZY223) didn't show themselves only after I made the deletion. In the following discussion, it became clear that the source they added was irrelevant. (See: .)
 * ZZARZY223 wrote many not useful informations in other pages too, like Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711), without a normal reference. He had written into the article with hundreds of years old documents as cited sources! After I removed them referring to WP:PRIMARY, Aristeus01 quickly rushed to edit war with the reason of "abusive deletion". See our discussion here:.
 * He sets these cases up as they could've been fixed, while he himself is deleting well-sourced texts verified by academic works with the reason of "Hungarian PoV". . Gyalu22 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, please check @Gyalu22's edits and see for yourselves.
 * Here's another one:
 * revision 20 Nov 22 - Transylvania
 * in which you, @Gyalu22, added a substantial part from a Hungarian POV and at the same time removed a sourced paragraphs:
 * "Nevertheless, Romanians constitued an important part of Transylvania's population even on the eve of the Mongol Invasions"


 * and on top you self declare your edits as: "rewrite from NPoV". Come on, how much more does it need!
 * This minor edits that escape admin detection have a strong impact on the readers involved and interested in the topic, hence the reaction of so many of them including myself. How and why the Wiki community is willing to accept this situation and the ensuing escalation of conflict is beyond me and the source of my frustration with the rules of this site which some like yourself are talented at dancing around.
 * One should have the presence of spirit in a situation like this to admit his/her bias, and I must say you are not doing a splendid figure. This continuation of accusations and warring, including comments on a investigation of sockpuppeting in the hope of influencing decisions, speak for themselves and are proof of your bellicose character - the underlying cause for removal of the paragraph that ignited this conflict.

Edit: corrected myself, 1 paragraph removed. --Aristeus01 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know @QuidditchCup53 and investigate as much as you like you will find nothing to link us two because I have no idea who he or she is. How much more evidence does one need before admitting a wrong decision was made and things are actually like "the crazy guy" said? Aristeus01 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The SPI is purely procedural. QuidditchCup53 is a new account which continued your edit-war and is therefore indistinguishable from a sockpuppet even if they are a different physical person. The SPI is merely to check for links. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you noticed but that part was a scholarly PoV, debated by many others. (A short summary about something's history can't be made of opinions that aren't universally accepted.) Gyalu22 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here we go again with the dancing. The history of that part of the world is a contentious matter subject to two opposing views. Very little, if anything, is "universally" accepted. Using excuses like these to delete a passage of the opposing view ( the matter of it's scholarly POV not being present in the talk page) is most certainly not editing from NPOV, it is pretty much the opposite of that. I urge you to understand and overcome your subjectivity on the matter before more damage is done and more users are harmed by this behaviour. If you truly believe in objectivity now is a good time to recognise your national bias. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't replaced PoV with PoV, but with NPoV. You see I haven't put in anything that isn't accepted by (e.g.) Romanian historians. Now everything in the chapter is universally accepted, and it doesn't look very little. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? So how would a "real" Hungarian POV look? Come on, indulge us with an example here on the talk page. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Something that isn't accepted outside Hungary. It's pointless to discuss this further. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Aristeus01, just I noticed that you had some issue with me.
 * You wrote:
 * "More of an Animal Farm sort of environment" "degrade yourself and live in fear of being reported" "there is no pleasure in editing Wikipedia as it stands, it actually is a very frustrating and disturbing process. This is not a happy place"
 * Well, until this day, I did not report anybody, while I see you are only for a some month in the Wikipedia and you reported already many users in that short period, despite you are worry about being reported... which means actually the other users need live in fear in a not happy place from your reportings.
 * 12 For example, Borsoka, an user with good reputation who are 15 years in the Wikipedia was blocked for a week (because he was not so kind with the administrators in that debate), after you reported him, however he did only 1 revert in that dispute with you
 * I see you have time to monitor other users and me, and cherry picking some of my edits from the previous half year from more than 1000 edits to blame me vandalism, even from that time when you did not register to the Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia, and not the Romanian national communist Securitate.
 * Of course, I have sometimes debate with other users, even many Hungarian users (for example Borsoka, Norden, Gyalu and others) and not just with Romanian users. But I always try to make a normal conversation in the talk page and solve the issue whitout reporting anybody.
 * You wrote:
 * "I feel bad for new users that have to experience this toxic behaviour"
 * When you was blocked after breaking the wiki rules, then instantly a possible sockpuppet user (with exactly the same user page what you have) did exactly the same revert as you did. Then you instantly reported me to the admins when I responded to the activity of this "new" user, I do not want to comment this behavior, but I see you complained that how Wikipedia is so toxic...
 * I see you want to support a notorious sockpuppet: 123 He was reported even by a Romanian users and many other admins (you can relax, no Hungarian users were involved in that case) who saw his activity, because this user spreaded only hardcore anti-Hungarian Romanian nationalism and flooded all Hungarian related articles with carefully cherry picked anti-Hungarian quotes. I see you are very worrying about Hungarian nationalism, but supporting this is user is not a problem for you... is this your happy place right?
 * In your report, I see you cherry picked my edits when I debated with this notorious user, well, all have history, many edits, explanations and admin interventions, but I see you missed these things from your report.
 * Here I talked with him long vainly in the talk page. 12 3 4
 * I see you did not like my edit regarding this nationalist user, you wrote: 1 2
 * "please note here the user that supported deletion of the paragraph in question restored and reinforced the said paragraph while deleting information about demographics, in particular the one supporting Romanian majority"
 * Well, I see for you it was not a problem to remove modern academic Hungarian source which does not support the Romanian nationalist point of view. While in the same time you restored a strange non contemporary academic source from 1850 which support the Romanian nationalist point of view. Morover, you basically stated that the full Hungarian national library, all Hungarian sources and authors are unreliable and basically you suggested that only nationalist Romanian sources allowed for Hungarian history, with this act you demonstrated a very hardcore chauvinism, but you worry about Hungarian nationalism... double standard?
 * I posted 2 maps you can see Romanian majority in the map of 1784, because we have data, census. But I bet you have problem with the other map which also based on Hungarian state documents. I had valid argument always why I remove sentences.
 * I see you dedicated to spread only Daco-Roman things here, which is the hardcore Romanian nationalism, which is actually very debated by international historiography, Hungarian historiography and the historiography of the surronding countries does not accept it. I see if somebody does not accept the hardcore Romanian nationalism and fringe Daco-Roman things then you blame this user instantly "Hungarian nationalism". Do you think everybody is Hungarian nationalist who do not accept Romanian nationalism and all Daco-Roman things? It is quite nonsense.
 * It is a good example when I started a conversation with you about fringe Romanian nationalist theories. I see you did not ask my questions, you did not have arguments, evidences. Even it was not a problem for you to support an unrelated place for the topic (Pannonia) to spread Romanian nationalist viewpoint, again, I see you did not ask my questions, you did not have arguments, evidences.
 * I have no problem to show more theories from reliable academic sources. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @OrionNimrod
 * The reason why you see my edits as "chauvinistic" is because you are so far at the other end of the spectrum that even quoting Romanian sources is an act of "ultra-nationalism" to you. I said it before and I will say it again: I do not look favourably on the current rise of nationalism in Hungary -including sites not institutions you used as source - or on the activity of some users on this site, including yourself, on some topics. This bias might go unnoticed by other Wikipedians since they do not have an interest in the debate, but it is painfully obvious for others like myself. And since most (perhaps 90%) of my edits are around the topic of Romanian language, you pointing at the one or two edits and several comments around historical topics that, in my defence, are common knowledge in Romanian historiography, is a good example of that bias.
 * However, Wikipedia is asking us to not start or escalate arguments, and I already feel bad about having these debates with Hungarian nationalists like yourself on this site since there is no "prize" to win here, it's just an internet page. If my opinion is "chauvinistic" or "nationalist" or whatever term you consider it might be I suggest asking for third-opinion or any other form of mediation Wikipedia is making available to resolve such issues. That being said I hope you'll understand if I do not reply to further messages like this, I'm not here to start or win arguments. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Aristeus01,
 * I mean "chauvinistic behavior", when you removed Hungarian source and you stated that the number 1 Hungarian library (with all Hungarian sources), the number 1 Hungarian academy are not reliable source for the history of Hungary. Which is quite ridiculous. While I have no problem as I said show sources and views from more side, if these are not fringe. For example I sourced several Romanian sources as well. But I think it is very strange when you write these things to a topic like: "Romanian language was uninterruptedly spoken in Pannonia (today's Austria, West Hungary 2000 years long until today", and you are unable to show evidences, just spreading this fringe thing. As I said above I have arguments why I do not like a current content, not because some spectrum just I am really do not like the history falsifications.
 * "I do not look favourably on the current rise of nationalism in Hungary -including sites not institutions you used as source - or on the activity of some users on this site, including yourself, on some topics."
 * What do you mean rise of nationalism? For example, I think Romania was always a country with strong nationalism, even at the communist time, the Daco-Roman theory... For me it is very strange that you are spreading nationalist Romanian theory as I showed above and you are worring about rise of nationalism... seems you have not so criticial in this case. As I said above, if somebody recognize the Romanian nationalism and make remarks, it does not mean that this person will be automatically Hungarian nationalist. But I see this is the way, if somebody does not accept everything, even many Romanian nationalist things, from you, then that person will be automatically Hungarian nationalist for you, right? Do you think, this accusation is simple, to put all fringe things to Wikipedia?
 * Could you show me when I used source from nationalist site what you do not like? Because I do not remember... Or do you think again to the Hungarian National Library or Hungarian Academy of Science?
 * Could you tell me exactly which activity of mine is painfully for you? And which topic? I think that is there are the talk page to discuss. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "the number 1 Hungarian academy are not reliable source for the history of Hungary. Which is quite ridiculous." - I've looked into this and it turns out that the Hungarian Academy for Sciences has been under pressure from the political authorities for over 4 years now
 * Hungary puts science institutes under government control – DW – 07/02/2019
 * The European Parliament has even taken action against Hungary outlining concerns about threats to academic freedom and the rule of law. Therefore the site and the institutions you claim to be beyond criticism are very much subject to criticism.
 * "For example, I think Romania was always a country with strong nationalism, even at the communist time, the Daco-Roman theory"
 * First of all that's whataboutism. Yes, Romanian does have it's share of nationalism yet not on the level displayed by Hungary, that is it has not overtaken entire political system. Nationalism in Romania is marginal. Nationalism in Hungary is rampant.
 * "Do you think, this accusation is simple?" Simple and direct. I tell it as it is. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Aristeus01, All national institutes financed and controlled by the governments in every countries, I do not know what would be surprising. I do not know what is that DW site, but I see you think it is more authentic than the full Hungarian National Library which was claimed as unreliable by you. Or do you accept all content from the Hungarian Academy of Science which was created before this 4 years, or you do not like those content which was published in the previous 4 years?
 * I think it is really off topic to talking about daliy politic to reason to forbid to use all Hungarian scources (quite undemocratic behavior), because I edit medieval topics mostly sourced from older sources than today decade. Btw I do not know exactly what does mean nationalism rampart in Hungary, I bet I would able to collect huge amount of nationalism rampart from Romania, but this is not that place. For example in Hungary nobody make harm for the ethnic Romanians, but in Hungary we know huge amount of anti-Hungarian ethnic incident by nationalistic Romanians in the present and in the past decades and almost everyday in the news. This is also very usual: "Hungarians, get out of the country!" Just fast search in the recent time: Cluj, 29 August 2022: “We are Romanians, we are the masters here forever.” Please do not blame me, but I do not beleive that the nationalism in Romania is "marginal", you will not find this kind of things in Hungary against Romanians or against local people, and morover against those people who are living there ancient homeland in those cities which were founded by their ancestors.
 * Basically the Daco-Roman theory is a very nationalistic theory, a living space theory for a master race from the Tisza to Dneister river. It was demonstrated by several Romanian maps even today and even in 1980's by Romanian academic sources Could you tell me why do Romania need to produce those maps? Which are really does not match with the international history maps, while Hungarian history maps are exactly the same as international maps. This deeds clearly show me that the Daco-Roman theory is just pure nationalistic theory, and it is very ironical for me that you blame everything with Hungarian nationalism if somebody does not accept this very nationalistic theory.  OrionNimrod (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @OrionNimrod
 * If you are willing to deny that nationalism has been on the rise in Hungary for more than a decade and it affected all institutional levels, I wonder what argument can one bring to your satisfaction? It seems even Deustche Welle is unknown to you. What about BBC?
 * Europe and right-wing nationalism: A country-by-country guide - BBC News
 * You feel it's not off topic to discuss this yet you argue "Daco-Roman theory" is nationalistic because you seen in Hungarian news Romanian people chanting some anti-Hungarian slogan. Do you even believe this? Does it sit well with you that that it is only in Hungarian news? Do you understand that in a democracy people groups of people can say all sort of stupid things without being a widespread opinion of the entire population? For example how many thought Covid vaccine were harmful. Do you think all Romanians think the same?
 * "Nobody make harm of the ethnic Romanian"? How many are there in Hungary? 30-40000? Because when minorities are large enough then you certainly "make harm of them"
 * 2008–2009 neo-Nazi murders of Roma in Hungary
 * This is not a tit for tat, I assure you, it's a reaction from outside Hungary to the rampant (yes, rampant) nationalism exhibited by your country and by some users here on this site. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you deny the recorded (pictures, videos) or any other xenophobic anti-Hungarian incidents in Romania. Because the numbers of Hungarians in Romania more than million, you know a lot of Hungarians in Romania have relatives and friends in Hungary, I assume they know their own life.
 * Still I do not know what is the bussiness editing medieval historical content in wiki that in which country how many percent of votes got national parties this years (your BBC link, actually the ruling party is National conservatism and not fair right wing). I can confirm you, that the historiography in Hungary regarding Transylvania and in the Daco-Romanian theory was the same all the time in Hungary, today, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, in the communist (clearly not a nationalist), and before times. While the national-communist Romania ran the Dacianism, according to your several edits in wiki, seems you like this kind of nationalism, I see you blame people with certain deeds what actually you are doing too. Btw I think for you is everybody is "bad nationalist" who does not accept the Romanian nationalistic Daco Roman theory, right? Because in Hungary nobody accept that theory, I assume for you all Hungarians will be "bad nationalistic" for you. I promise you will find a lot of people outside Romania (not only in Hungary) who does not accept that theory, because the historiography of many countries does not fit with the Daco-Roman theory regarding that region. Why? Because other countries will not accept national theories of other country without archeological evidence, contemporary sourcess, which does not match with their own historical knowledge, records, sources. However because it is wikipedia, I have no problem to present more (not fringe) academic opinions. The linked fake maps are clearly represent the quality of the Daco-Roman theory, do you think it is not a nationalistic theory that those maps (which does not match with the international history) claim the territory of other countries in the past? Romania 8-13th century: [9 ][10 ][11 ] Of course there are Hungarian nationalist but in the internet I see a lot of amount of Romanian nationalist, not need to deny. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you even understand what Dacianism stands for? It declares Romanians are almost purely Dacians. Where in my edits have you seen this?
 * You keep talking about International community yet your sources are almost completely Hungarian. Saying it's international does not make it true. And by diverting your replies to Romania when the examples are about Hungarian events and situations (again whataboutism) you display clear anti-Romanian tendencies. Ironic that you accuse others.
 * "I can confirm you, that the historiography in Hungary regarding Transylvania and in the Daco-Romanian theory was the same all the time in Hungary" - you can't confirm that. This does not work by "trust me" arguments. If anything, it makes me doubt it even more.
 * Again, do you deny Hungary has a nationalistic stance? Does this look "conservative" to you?
 * orban greater hungary - Bing images Aristeus01 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First, you started to talk about Hungarian nationalism in your talk page and denying the Romanian one. Just Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin know very well what is the Romanian nationaIism, which experienced in their own skin in the previous 100 years, and still in the present. Many known ethnic violations which happen in Transylvania in Romania against ethnic Hungarians by Romanian nationalist are not exist/no similar deeds in Hungary, that is why I pointed out when I see very funny when you talk about "huge rising" Hungarian nationalism and "marginal" Romanian nationalism. If I talk about Romania, I do not know why that thing would be anti-Romanian thing. Can I say the same, if you talk about Hungary you would be anti-Hungarian? Because you are talking always the Hungarian nationalism?
 * It is clear for me that for you the full Hungarian historiography is "nationalist", because it does not accept and never accepted in the past the Daco-Roman theory which does not fit at all with own historical records, sources, etc. This is not my problem that you do not like it.
 * You say that I cannot confirm the Hungarian historiography :) I think I know well it, but if you think I am wrong, if you would find that the Hungarian historiography would accept the Romanian nationalist Daco-Roman theory then I will ask pardon for you.
 * Good to know that you are fearing from a football scarf :) perhaps the bad conscience? I can show you similar: https://dailynewshungary.com/romanian-ex-president-the-real-romania-is-from-tisza-video/
 * Still I do not know what is the bussiness with these things to editing medieval contents... Morover I see many modern Romanian authors are similar or more closer today to the Hungarian historiography, they total abandoned the very hardcore and anti-Hungarian national-communist things, I think those above linked fake maps are embarrassing today. I think Daniel Roxin like those maps. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you too think Roxin is an id*** then we are are on the same page.
 * From my point of view Hungarian historiography rejects Daco-Roman theory for political reasons and has been doing so for the past 200 years partly because of the rise of Romanian nationalism in Transylvania. This nationalist movement strongly supported naïve historical ideas and from that point of view I can understand the Hungarian position. However, immigrationist theory is equally naïve and not fact based alternative. Just so you understand where I stand. As for knowing Hungarian history, I'm sure you know more about it than me. That however does not mean it was such before 18th century. It is even recognised here on wiki that "the development of the theories was closely connected to political debates in the 18th century" Furthermore, the alleged support you and others claim it has among non national affiliated historians is far from a majority, on the contrary, so when you say "This is not my problem that you do not like it." here is a more important voice:
 * "Nationalist historians deploy one or the other scenario to justify modern territorial claims or claims to indigeneity. Thus, Hungarian (Magyar) claims to Transylvania assume a complete Roman exodus from Dacia, while Romanian claims assume that Romance continued to be spoken by Romanized Dacians. Most scholars who are not nationally affiliated assume the second scenario." Victor A. Friedman for Britannica. So excuse me if along with doubting Daco-Roman theory I also doubt Immigrationist theory.
 * As for the suffering of Hungarians in Romania, some of it is true, some of it is nationalist vs nationalist pvp, but I guess you are willing to deny that because "Hungarian good, Romanian bad". Aristeus01 (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian nationalism running rampart on Wikipedia
Hi, I used to use the Wikipedia pages as I study history in university. But as I kept going back to the pages I noticed that often paragraphs would dissapear, often paragraphs that Hungarian histography disagrees with (even when German or British histography agrees). I looked into this and it seems Wikipedia seems to have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy. Removing sources that disagree with your nationalist version is not NPOV. Paragraphs that fall under WP:NPOVHOW are removed out of nationalist desire.

Is this normal? I assume there's plenty of Wikipedia pages in conflict like Russia-Ukraine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, but NPOV doesn't seem to be enforced here. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for speaking out!
 * What you said is entirely true, and right now user @OrionNimrod broke the 3RR rule, confirming that the removal of paragraphs is due to uncontained nationalist intentions.
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * @EdJohnston and @Black Kite, is this something you might be interested in or should we turn just a blind eye because no one is reporting it?
 * I feel bad for new users that have to experience this toxic behaviour of political shoving and bullying, hope this does not diminish your will to contribute to this site.
 * Again, I really appreciate your message. Thank you!

Edit: sorry, I just had to take some more off my chest

- these edits that some Hungarian users are making are very subtle and to the non-Romanian or non-Hungarian admins they seem fine, and right now we an entire page dedicated to the history of the largest Romanian province with minimal information about Romanians previous to the accepted Hungarian narrative which I guess was exactly the point and reason for the changes they were making. Likewise, other users have created pages like Re-Latinisation of Romanian which uses the worst possible title for the article, clearly intended to upset and mock Romanians, yet the people that offer 3rd opinions or mediation do not understand these subtleties, and -extremely worrying - chose to "put a muzzle" on anyone trying to point this is not ok. --Aristeus01 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

SPI
FYI - Sockpuppet investigations/Aristeus01. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Black Kite
 * I want to support @QuidditchCup53 appeal to have his/her block reverted before this issue is dead in the water.
 * As you said, the user is just someone who saw the changes made to History of Transylvania and decided to react without being aware of WP:PROXYING. Their mistake was a beginner's mistake with no ill intent. Furthermore the same rule does state "New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating." therefore "blocked indefinitely" is a very harsh measure, uncalled for, and unsupported by any evidence as the sockpuppet investigation shows. This is against WP:NOBITING, actually it is a clear example on how we should not treat newcomers. So please, although I understand you have been on this site for a long time, try to have another look into his matter and see the situation from a newcomer's point of view.
 * Thank you for your time! Aristeus01 (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * QuidditchCup53 doesn't look like a newbie to me. As Black Kite formulated it, he/she has a surprising amount of knowledge about Wikipedia.
 * Not rhetorically, why do you think he has the same user page as you? Gyalu22 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because he copied from my page, isn't that obvious?! He saw my edits and said to himself "this guy thinks like me so I can use his page as inspiration" - just like I did from other users at first. And to be honest, except for the part with swimming that I am not good at, everything else matches my interests, including Elder Scrolls. IRL such "birds of a feather" is a thing, even if wiki admins have learned to see the worst in people. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Aristeus01! Your additions to History of Transylvania have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Vlachs in Bulgaria
Hello. You recreated an article I previously deleted. I don't think there is a need for having an article on the "Vlachs" of Bulgaria. There are no "Vlachs", it's either Romanians, Aromanians or Boyash Gypsies. I also hardly see any content that could not be easily integrated into Romanians in Bulgaria and that would require splitting into a new article. And your article also has contents holding the notion that the "Vlachs" are not to be referred to as Romanians because they're something else, following the POV harmful practice followed at Vlachs of Serbia. I am thinking of merging the contents of that article into Romanians in Bulgaria and leaving the page as a disambiguation page as Vlachs of Serbia (disambiguation), and I'd like to hear your opinion. Super  Ψ   Dro  07:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus
 * Right off the bat I have no issue merging contents as long as the information on "Vlachs in Medieval Bulgaria" is kept. The fragmentation between Romanian, Aromanian, and so on has caused important historical information to be overlooked in the content of the article, hence my edits.
 * However, with this precedent in mind, I think bringing the entire Vlachs article under Romanians to fill historical gap is a must. Currently we have Romania in the Middle Ages but that only covers the territory and not the entire population. We therefore have extensive info lost or split between articles that are seemingly not connected. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I will keep the information. However, merging all of Vlachs into Romanians would not be appropriate. "Vlach" is a term that has been used not only for Romanians but also for Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians or Istro-Romanians. It has also been generally used in a non-ethnic context simply as "shepherd". Further, it is still used in some countries, it is not restricted to the Middle Ages. There's a lot of information to write about it and the topic is notable. "Vlach" in a historical context, analyzing how has it been used in documents and how its use has survived until today, is worth an article. "Vlach" as a tool to split up the Romanian and other nations and assimilate them into other ones must not be allowed, and splitting the Romance peoples in Bulgaria into Vlachs and whatever contributes to that, as it has in Serbia. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * No, I wasn't thinking as far as merging Vlachs and Romanians. The issue here is that before the 14th century, or at least before the 10th century, the language spoken by "Vlachs" from everywhere was the same. We have studies dedicated to Common Romanian but not to "Proto-Romanians" to call them this way. Here intervenes, as you said, the split between Vlachs in various countries even though by language and everything else but geography they were the same ethnos. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We have Dalmatian language but not Dalmatians (ethnic group). It is not necessary that all languages have a respective ethnicity article. Also notice the lack of equivalents to your suggestion in the neighborhood. We don't have articles on Proto-Bulgarians, Proto-Albanians or, to give you examples of peoples who split, Proto-Italians or Proto-Iberians. I am also not sure there would be enough sources discussing a Proto-Romanian ethnicity. I have in fact even seen some authors using "Proto-Romanians" or similar and "Vlachs" as synonyms. It is an interesting idea but I am not sure it is possible. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I merged the article. Most info was either not about the Romanians or about subgroups that is controversial to refer to as Romanians (such as the Asen dynasty) so I didn't merge much. All the info on Aromanians and Gypsies is already present in their respective articles. Most of the info there actually belongs to Vlachs. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the only thing I could've added is the subdivision of the Romanians into subgroups in Bulgaria, however its source does not work; and the process of self-identification of "Vlachs" into Romanians, but I don't know if the 50,000 figure also includes Aromanians and Gypsies. We should use sources calling ethnic groups by their name to avoid confusion. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus
 * It is a shame that we could not find a place for the historical information event though that was what we agreed. I rescued that info and added it to the main Vlachs article. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

DRN notification
Dispute_resolution_noticeboard — Biruitorul Talk 14:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

RSN
See Reliable sources/Noticeboard. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Romanian Influence on Slavic languages


A tag has been placed on Romanian Influence on Slavic languages requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gjs238 (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Slav sea"
Hi, Aristeus01. About this sentence in the re-latinization article.

I've explained the problem in my 9:36 AM edit. It's impossible that intellectuals believed this to be the case. (To the west, there was an equally huge block of Hungarians, also a sizeable amount of Saxons and an ample Ottoman Turkish population in Dobruja and Bessarabia.) If this was just their mantra, (not their real opinion) as you said, we can write it down like that (if there are supporting sources). However, the sentence in the current form is not right. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gyalu22 the expression is meant to be understood in a diachronic manner, rather than as a snapshot of the 19th century situation, meaning, of course, Romanians were continously inhabiting the current lands.
 * But while your reasoning applied to their epoch is correct, even if the phrase didn't make sense it is an actual quote from a RS so that is enough justification keep it text. I would add here Boia himself uses it as a negative example for pompous nationalism, if that helps. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyhow they meant it, it's not a real description of the situation (of anytime). Boia is talking about "Romanians" in that paragraph, not "educated Romanians". Indeed, this "surrounded by aliens" sentiment may only be taken seriously by common people, while educated people can utilize it as a mantra. If any sources say that, we can write that down like that. Otherwise, incorrect information should be deleted. Gyalu22 (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok @Gyalu22 I'll just delete the "Bulaqs" references since I believe it's incorrect information. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you are now resorting to making threats when your standpoint is not supported by the content's marked source, nor by logic. I explained why it is incorrect. Gyalu22 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat, it's ad absurdum - my point here is we can't delete sourced information on the grounds that we think it's incorrect. I would suggest to look at "Verifiability" and let us know in what way the phrase does not fit one of the categories. Edit: please do not make accusations like the one above, it's not nice. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're acting like you don't understand.
 * Yes, I think that part of information isn't correct. But I think that not by my personal liking, but because (1) the marked source doesn't verify it (2) it's just untrue. I explained these problems at length. If you think my arguments are wrong, please elaborate. Thanks. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gyalu22 I've asked you nicely to tone down on personal attacks, so please stop. I'm not replying to any more comments like these.
 * The reasoning is erroneous because:
 * the content is in the cited source;
 * it's been explained the phrase is to be understood in the light of the proponents view of history, not a wiki editor's view of history.
 * Aristeus01 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a personal attack, I really think you've intentionally avoided getting to the point. I had to tell you somehow to take my arguments into account, because you repeatedly didn't. (I can also call that disrespectful.) Otherwise we can't get to a conclusion. So thanks again for doing so now.
 * Yes, the phrase is in the cited source, but in a different context: Boia talks about it as the sentiment of the Romanian folk, while the article talks about it as the view of the Transylvanian scholars. I explained why that is wrong. I say the § Transylvanian School and Latinist current chapter doesn't need that sentence. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree. The quote cannot be attributed to any single individual connected to Transylvanian School and Latinist current is a vague phrasing that can, as you say, very well include plain folk. Furthermore Boia, although he takes a critical view at it, mostly attributes it to pre-WWII nationalism and in particular to communist period. I'll undo my revert. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Vlachs into History of Transylvania. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, @Diannaa. Aristeus01 (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Be careful!
I would be happy if you would focus on quality instead of quantity. What do you think this sentence means: "After 1276 May 8, King Alexander IV. King Ladislaus allows the chapter of Alba Iulia to settle 60 Romanian households (mansiones) on the border of his estates called Fülesd and Enyed, separated from the episcopal lands, and to exempt them from all royal taxes, fiftieth and tithes." Who is King Alexander IV? What is this date format? Or see "1293 November 7 III. King Andrew confirms to his cousin, the late King Andrew IV. King Ladislaus's earlier concession to the chapter of Alba Iulia to keep the 60 households of Romanians". King Andrew IV? I never heard of him. The quality of this work is absolutely terrible, don't get angry. Anyway It would be more grateful if you were to write a synthesis, a coherent text instead of a bunch of contingent and subjective lists. Norden1990 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Norden1990.
 * I'm not that familiar with Hungarian historical texts and some details during translation elude me. Far from being upset, I appreciate the feedback. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why, you should use secondary sources instead of Latin-language charters. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work
Hi Aristeus01. Thank you for creating another excellent page, Modern Romanian. What other stages does Romanian proper have? I'm aware of the existence of Bulgarian, Russian and Serbian Wikipedia articles about Old Romanian. It'd be interesting to see an article for it. Did Romanian have a "middle" stage? Probably not. Keep the good work! Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you @Super Dromaeosaurus! I really appreciate the encouragement.
 * Yes, Old Romanian is a growing topic in the academic writings, not only in terms of vocabulary but syntax and grammar too, and probably due a separate article by now. Btw I did not forget about the Aromanian lexis, another topic that requires attention. Aristeus01 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Will be looking forward to read articles about those if you decide to write about them. Regards. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI
Unfortunately, I don't have the necessary background knowledge on Hungarian topics to be able to help out — I don't already know what's true and what isn't about most Hungarian topics, as a rule, and I can't read the Hungarian-language sources in order to figure out what is or isn't supported by them. You'd be better off approaching WikiProject Hungary to bring it to their attention, because people associated with that project are more likely to have useful background knowledge of the topic and the Hungarian language. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick reply! Aristeus01 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Vlachs. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Aoidh (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Aoidh
 * I don't understand: where did I do 3 reverts within 24 hours recently? And why are there the 3 reverts reported not a break of 24 h rule? And what other users I reverted besides CriticKende and now Orion Nimrod? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I advise you to read both WP:3RR and the Edit warring page in general. - Aoidh (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did and I still do, I did not jump to report. What I saw is: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period" hence the report. Please help me understand. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody made more than 3 reverts on the page (at least not within the past day or so). However, you have been consistently edit warring on that article for months. The reason for your block is general edit warring, not a 3RR-specific issue. - Aoidh (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be annoying, really am but just don't get it, the first revert was at 12:49 on the 16th, second at 14:43 same day then 3rd at 12:32 on the 17th so within 24 hours and you said yourself on the result comment "both editors have made 3 reverts within 24 hours recently". Aristeus01 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is indeed three reverts. If you read WP:3RR it states An editor must not perform more than three reverts (emphasis in original). Making three reverts is not a 3RR violation, though you were blocked for edit warring as a broad concept, not for 3RR itself. Per Edit warring: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. As I mentioned here at ANEW, most of the edits on that article that were made by others were reverted by you either fully or partially, and that has been going on for the past few months, despite no consensus on the talk page to warrant such persistent edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh thank you for explaining that. I don't know what to say, I really misunderstood that part.  Aristeus01 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * If you wantonly use the unblock, e.g., you could get WP:TPA removed. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Some help
Hi Aristeus01, I remember you saying you had some books about the Aromanian language that you could use. I've started a stub for Aromanian dialects, however I don't know much about linguistics. If you know anything about the topic, feel free to add anything, your help will be appreicated. I apologize if you don't know much or if you're not interested. Regards, Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus
 * Gladly, although for a topic like this it might take me some time to find the best sources. For now I can add a few things available in the dictionaries of Cunia, Vrabie, and Atlasul-lingvistic-al-dialectului-aroman. Aristeus01 (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it was mainly in case you already knew something about the topic. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your patience. Top of my head the only thing that delineates Aromanian language in the form of dialects is the North/South divide between the 7 vowels system and the 6 vowel system. Other than that, the situation is as complicated like north of the Danube, with no major lexical or grammatical distinctions to make a clear cut categorisation. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)