User talk:Muntele

Welcome
Hi! Please read this article about neutral point of view in articles. Also read about adding proper sources. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

removal of proper sources??
Why are the real and proven informations removed, and replaced with FAKE ones, with no sources attached to it what so ever? The info destroyers on the site even send me cretin attacks where they acuses me of "not atach the proper source note/info"😉. Even if I carefully attach the reference notes (the same at other info on the same page, allready posted by others, real, accepted source notes), the info posted by me complete with note sources, is again removed complitely and replaced with cretin, fake, and totally unproven info, with no source note what so ever. What kind of site is this?? A new department of the Funny Farm? Or a place where history manipulators gathered to make up fantasy and totally unsubstantiated fairytales, removing any real info & historian which posts pertinent and proven info? In this case, I live you to your medicine. PS: Do not forget to cry "attack to person!"😉 (or whatever you call it when you are caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and you look for an excuse) Muntele (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First, your edits were heavily in favor of the Dacians which is in violation of our neutrality policy. It is not our job to decide who is right. Just write facts and add sources. Second, you didn't even add any sources and just pointed out that mainstream historians are automatically wrong for some reason. For example you said that Dacians won the Trajan's Dacian wars (which certainly didn't happen) and modified the troop numbers without adding any kind of sources. If you are not a troll, then I suggest you strongly look into mirror before accusing people. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in "the violation of the neutrality policy"?? YOU are the bias one, roman empire fan, as you also say on your page, and "I am the one which is not neutral but bias"? I left you an answer in a new discuusion, because it's a long answer, which proves that you are the one who violates the neutrality rule (I also brought proofs of it!), and you remove official ref sources info in order to replace it with empty (and not backed up with anything) words, in order to fit your pro-roman agenda

February 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ancient Greece, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 16:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Trajan's Dacian Wars. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Warning for repeated unsourced edits (see page history of article). And it's not only this article but several more, all showing repeated seemingly POV edits, with no sources supporting them.'' Thomas.W talk 16:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What "official cited sources" I supposed "removed"??? Wikipedia is full of uncited sources texts! How did that got there? According to you, that is NOT permitted. Or you change the rules again, as you go along? Or the rules are only for some, not for everybody?? The change I made, was at the page Medes, which does NOT (nor ever had) anything yo do with Grece. The illegal link there was leading to the page "GREEKS"! Not to any "cited source" of any kind for any information presented there, let concerning the Medes page. If you wouldn't be so bias, you would stop trying so unsuccesful to contradict real historians, where history is concern. The second mention of "greeks" on that page was even more absurd and put there out of thin air, and it did NOT had any cited source beside it. CHECK IT NOW, if you do not believe thectruth I allways tell you. The greek nationalist* just said there that (and I quote!): "A few archaeological sites (discovered in the "Median triangle" in western Iran) and textual sources (from contemporary Assyrians and also Greeks in later centuries)..", inserting "Greeks" there with no cited source what so ever, something which according to your personal rule on this personal wikipedia domain, is NOT PERMITED. At least that is what you continuously insult me with, when I replace bias bullshit whit real historical info. WHERE IS THE PROOF of that "greek textual sources"?? The inserted link "Greeks" there leads to the Greeks page. NOT to any "greek textual sources" about Medes. So, your rules does not apply to your greek nationalistic friends which vandalise Wikiledia for decades now? Only I have to placed cited sources in my postings? And if links to another wikipedia pages are considered "cited sources", as you very well know, my posting contained numurous links to other wikipedia pages. So, what's your problem??? I posted many official and real historical info on wikipedia since 2015, and you, full of hate against all non-greeks, wiped them all out! You even ILLEGAL replaced the amount of soldiers in the Trajan's Wars against the Dacians, from 30,000 in the first war, and 15,000 in the second (real historical info which existed on wikipedia since wikipedia started!) with some kakameny amounts of some couple of hundred thousands, WITHOUT ANSOLUTE ANYBSHRED OF CITED SOURCES! And when I tried to changed back, I got insulted, hunted away, than insilted again, and that blocked! Now I understant. You are GREEK. And your perpetual life goal is to falsify history in your favour, thinking that wilipedia has any historical value in real life. That's why you told me that ansurdity last week about "greek and roman influence on the balkan (Bulgarian, therefore SLAVIC) language. Even the dumbest linguist on Earth could tell you that the SLAVIC language has NOTHING to do with greek, nor with latin. I tell you one more thing. My JOB and in tje same time my hobby, is collecting and giving informations. Everything you ever did and say to/against me, is being noted, and not only. Also the agressive and bias BS your greek friends are inserting every minute, for years, allover wikipedia, like the monsense of "how is this being written in greek"😉 to every possible name of person or place on Earth, like anybody is interested how you write that in greek, while the page subject has nothing to do with Greece. If you are not bias, I expect you to add all the other translations in at least 10 popular languages, beside the greek version of it.

Example of what I mean above, copy and paste from Medes (Iran) page, city and race with no connection as race and language with the greeks: "The Medes[N 1] (/miːdz/, Old Persian Māda-,Ancient Greek: Μῆδοι, Hebrew: מָדַי) were anancient Iranian people[N 2] who lived in an area known as Media (Northwestern Iran) and who spoke the Median language."...

Your edit on Alexander the Great
Hello. I have reverted your edit on Alexander the Great since you didn't revert vandalism as you claimed. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) was already linked in the same sentence, so there's no need for adding it again, and linking to Ancient Greece is also correct, since there's no doubt in the sources about ancient Macedonia being part of the old Greek/Hellenistic world. So a) do not claim to revert vandalism when it clearly isn't vandalism, and b) don't "correct" articles if you don't understand the text, or don't read the text properly, before doing it. Thomas.W talk 17:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is you official source that "there's no doubt in the sources about ancient Macedonia being part of the old Greek/Hellenistic world" ??? You keep throwing empty words at me, in messages where you acuse me of not attaching proper sources. Sorry, there is a gap (easily crossed through a black hole or time travel mechsnism) between you and me here. I am an international aclaimed historian which uncovered countless historical proof of all kind and from allover the planet, while you are a frustrated net bully, which gets a kick from every bully you perform. Some of us are more than fed up woth you. Your history (with manybother users here) in this area of hostile behaviour towards everybody which does not agree with you (Who are you actually?? God?) And with your scarce historical knowledge, says volumes. So any extra comments are pointless. I close and go eat for a change, first time today. Success with your private domain (wikipedia)! You can clean up after me now and lretemd I was never here. Muntele (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

My reversions to your edits made on Pella
I've started a talk page discussion asking for your input, as well as explaining why I've been revering the content you've been adding. Please discuss it with me here instead of just adding the content back. I'd like to help you if I can :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Thracian language. Final warning for adding unsourced material with a misleading edit summary (adding material isn't "fixing typo". The warning also includes unsourced and unconstructive POV comments repeatedly added on Pella, with the same misleading edit summary: "fixed typo"...). Thomas.W talk 17:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Final warning for disruptive editing, as exemplified by your latest POV edits on Medes and Antes (people), where you add unsourced material and remove material you don't like, with your usual deliberately misleading edit summary: "fixed typo". Thomas.W talk 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your series of personal attacks here are completely unconscionable. If you say stuff like "You have no human value what so ever" to somebody here again, it'll be your last contribution to Wikipedia. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

May 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. Clubjustin Talkosphere  14:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Clubjustin. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Clubjustin Talkosphere  01:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

November 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Protochronism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Your recent edit to the page Protochronism appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Protochronism appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cucuteni–Trypillia culture, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Cucuteni–Trypillia culture that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. diff: "the data falsifyer "Joe Roe"  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)    Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)