User talk:Olahus/Archive3

Vidin
Yes, I do - Vidin has never been in Romania so the Romanian name is not necessary. We reached a conclusion on this matter with User:Mentatus and I will not argue again. --Gligan (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a long time ago but I will try to find it. --Gligan (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussions are not at one place. Look at my talk page and the talk page of Mentatus. --Gligan (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument to support your edit. Revert. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I opened a poll on the talk page. You should see it. Anton Tudor (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your absurd and disruptive changes in Romanians
Dear Olahus, on this issue you are clearly driven by the unrealistic and naive concern, that "român" could be confounded with "rom". That's why you have started an absurd crusade on en:wk, de:wi and ro:wk in order to reinvent reality and rewrite history, pushing the spelling form "rumân". You probably hope to help the Romanians with this artifice. Dear Olahus, pushing your own POV is definitely the wrong way. The spelling form "rumân" is not an actual form in Romania, regardless of what your intentions and convictions are. Please, try to differentiate between your wishes and reality. I know you are well intended, I am a Romanian too, but this crusade of yours is...ridiculous. Maybe I was to direct to you. It was none of my intention to offend you, or to try to humiliate you. I know how valuable a contributor you otherwise are on all three wikies, and I respect your work, but on this special issue you are definitely on the wrong path. Please do not take it personally, --84.153.54.19 (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "rumân" is not used at all in Romania (except as an archaism, or historical term or to stilistical aims)
 * As for the German use, please don't mix things. We re speaking now about the Romanian use, in the Romanian language, not about the use of o vs. u' in non-Romanian languages. For our debate it is of no relevance if Germans say "Rumäne" and French say "Roumains". Please, don't get things mixed --84.153.54.19 (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You answered me:
 * Yes, in Romania, the Romanians designate themselves nowadays as "români". I din't say anything else. But do Romanians live only in Romania? --Olahus (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By all respect, what kind of answer is this ?! Are you trying to fool around ?! What relevance have Romanians from abroad to the way Romanians call themselves in the Romanian language ?! What relevance have foreign denominations of Romanian to the way Romanians call themselves ?! What are you trying to do here ?! Are you trolling ?! I treated you with all due respect and I expect the same in return. Please try to keep a pertinent tone --84.153.54.19 (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Olahus, your point is quite valid and I tend to conqur to it (the rrom thing). But if you check talk:Romania, there are people that would still use the term Rumanian in a disparaging way. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection.
The article will be protected until the edit war is over; this is common practice (I changed the template on the page, to make this clearer). · AndonicO  Hail!  14:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion
I meant that there is no point of arguing. You will continue to stick to the Romanian view and I will continue to follow the Bulgarian one and no one is going to be convinced (unless Romania would join Bulgaria : ) I don't have time to read Vlachs because I have exams now.
 * Go and learn for exams better and accept the fact that Romanian names will stay. Anton Tudor (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even before the Second Balkan War had the Balkan countries assimilated different ethnicities. But was not Bulgaria which cowardly attack it neighbour while his whole army was fighting against two more countries in the Second Balkan War and caused the hatred which followed it. Up to 1912 Romania was much friendlier to Bulgaria than serbia and greece.
 * What do you want to say? Romania is your big neighbouring country and you should know by now who has the power.Anton Tudor (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to stop arguing because we are going to lose our time and nerves because I get really annoyed when the Romanian historians (and most Romanians) reject some facts. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you should learn more history, you lack arguments. Ruse town will have also Romanian name. Anton Tudor (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

@Anton Tudor: please, let us keep a friendly level of the talk. --Olahus (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

@Gligan: we can continue the discussion when we have more time. Good luck to your exams. --Olahus (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Olahus, I will need it : ) --Gligan (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Olahus, if you wish to continue our discussion I think the best way is skype because we can talk there and it would be faster that way (but my oral english is not that good). If you wish, write me your skype address and I will contact you. It would be interesting for me to learn some things for Romania and the Romanian way of life. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Many quotes can be given for the First Bulgarian Empire as a Macedonian one but this does not mean that it was and that it shall be mentioned. First discuss it on the talk page, I will remove it now. --Gligan (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Gligan, write me an e-mail. And concerning the article Second Bulgarian Empire, I would like to see some sources. In understand that you haven't much time now, so I won't revert your edits to this article right now. But remember: I expect some sources from you, and if you hesitate to show me them, then I'll have to replace my version. So, tell me, when do you wish to show me your sources?--Olahus (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your understanding: ) : ) My last exam is in Sunday and I will try to go to the library next week. Write your e-mail on my talk page or here. I will write it down and then will erase it if you wish. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

olahus.olahus80@yahoo.com

3 revert rule
Hi, I just want to make sure you know the wikipedia policy regarding reverts, this is in reference to your reverts in Romanians article -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Moldovans
I still fail to see how does this necessitate the inclusion of that redundant phrase. The data in those infoboxes comes almost invariably from census results, as only a census can provide information on the absolute numbers of an ethnicity living in a given region at a given time. If the data comes from some other source (perhaps, a generalization of a sample, or some unofficial source) it may be worth noting. But the assumption that data comes from an official census is kinda the "default" in those boxes. --Illythr (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS:I actually meant the talk page of the article, as this discussion is directly relevant to it. --Illythr (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I still do not see how adding "census results" to denote census results (as already done in the lead, actually) is in any way relevant to the "are Moldovans Romanians?" dispute. --Illythr (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. How is the data from this particular census not impartial? If you mean regarding the Moldovan/Romanian controversy - that is already covered in the text. The infobox itself doesn't even have the word "ethnicity" in it. I don't think any estimations are necessary when official census data is available, but what kind of estimations do you have in mind, exactly? If they have some sort of complementary info, they may be of use - in the infobox or otherwise. --Illythr (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, what kind of estimations do you have in mind? The infobox counts the entity "Moldovans". Whether they are in fact a subgroup of the Romanian people or a separate ethnicity shouldn't concern it in the slightest. Seeing as how it's such a controversy, it'd best be contained in the appropriate section. --Illythr (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean I don't know what you mean by this: We mention both data census and estimations (with references, of cource). What estimations? --Illythr (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I think you inclusion of Romanian Moldovans (especially numbers) might actually constitute original research, since the Romanian census didn't have an entry "Moldovan" (AFAIK). Also, the phrase Moldovans who declared themselves "Moldovans" sounds rather strange. --Illythr (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did the Romanian census have an option "Moldovan" to choose from? Or, rather, based on what source did you include them as Moldovans? As you well know, knowing something for a fact is not enough to satisfy the WP:V policy. PS: Yes, I know they're Moldovans, but a source is needed regardless of us just knowing something to be true.
 * As for the declaration - it's really weird. Like "Humans who declared themselves humans". I'll try to fix that silliness now. --Illythr (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ukrainian census had an entry "Moldovans", so we use that. Sourced and all. The Romanian census didn't, so we need to source it with something else. Shouldn't there be a Romanian history site or something that says that Moldovans (whatever it means by that) live in those regions? Currently, it's just your word (and maybe Voronin's, but he doesn't count). Heh, I like it the way it was done in Russia: the Nationality list had a blank entry, where you could write whatever you wanted. I think the census counted  a couple dozen Elves and Hobbits living in Russia (too bad the jokes were discarded)! :-D --Illythr (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be quite difficult to find a source for "most" Western countries actively "not recognizing" Moldovans, as most just don't care. --Illythr (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Voronin
That was incredible. I hope you just didn't notice who and what you quoted there... Be more careful next time. Find an official biography or something. --Illythr (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You quoted Dabija's masterpiece series "Rusoaicele", where he goes on about how improper it is for pureblood Moldovans to marry those dirty outsiders, who corrupt their spouses' minds and faithfully serve the Evil Empire aiming to destroy the newfound national identity. This goes beyond "normal" nationalism well into the realm of clinical hatred. It was so bad he actually drew criticism from his former frontist fellows, who didn't appreciate him providing solid grounds to parallels between them and fascism. I found the implication that Voronin (as well as the rest guys on that little list) is such an evil SOB because his (step)father was Russian rather amusing. "No comments", as the article says. --Illythr (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, the source you cited (not the newspaper, but the author and that particular article of his) is unreliable and even if he's correct about Voronin's father, there really ought to be a respectable biography stating the same. I mean, it's like quoting Pamyat about anything related to immigrants to Russia. They well may be correct on some issues, but they've been so thoroughly discredited as an RS, it's better to find a neutral source. --Illythr (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A Russian source on what? Voronin's parents? Why Russian? There should be some in Romanian... --Illythr (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection.
I've unprotected. · AndonicO  Hail!  11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

More on the Székely
Olahus, we really need to have some kind of discussion about the edits you're making to the Székely page, especially your insistence on a specific "Székely dialect" and your potentially misleading (though, I'm willing to assume, well-intentioned) presentation of Romanian census data. I realize our personal positions on these matters aren't likely to change, but maybe we can agree to some kind of consensus either between ourselves or with the help of other contributors to the article. I'd really prefer discussion to wholesale reversions of each other's edits. Hubacelgrand (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No one's denying that the Székely have certain dialectical particularities; they do, especially older people in small villages. I'm simply saying that this isn't the place to emphasize the "dialect," which is really just standard Hungarian with a few differences, for the same reason that we don't say people in Iaşi speak "Romanian: Moldavian dialect" or that Romanians in Vârşeţ speak "Romanian: Banat dialect." The Székely are ethnically Hungarian and speak Hungarian, just as much as people in Budapest or Szabadka; the article should reflect that. Hubacelgrand (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe
Hi, instead of useless reverts, could you perharps explain your position on the talk page of the article. And maybe answer why, say, Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad) should be not historically or geographically part of Central Europe. Yaan (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and stop adding Romania to the list without adding a valid reference. Simply adding it and listing a definition of your OWN in the reference section is not sufficient.  Romania by no definition is considered central European and I have never ran across it. --Careuc (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe #2
If you don't stop the edit wars, I will contact an admin. Your references aren't valid references, and no one agrees that Romania should be added to Central Europe. Like I said on the discussion page of the article, keep your personal biases away when you're choosing to edit an article. --Buffer v2 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And what is Romania from your point of view? A Southeastern European contry? Well yes ... but only 6,5% (Dobruja Region). Have a nice day!--Olahus (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are you pulling that 6.5% from? I want a source.  There is no possible way that you could have a percentage for Romania being in Central Europe (46%?) - there are NO borders for Central Europe... It's obvious that they're made up.  I would define Romania as an Eastern and Southeastern European country.  --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting to see your source for that 6.5% and the other percentages which show how much of Romania lies in the regions. And more importantly, I'm still waiting for a source that shows that Romania is indeed in Central Europe........--Buffer v2 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for a reference (show me a link). I've checked out your reference that you're using right now for Romania (the German site) and the link leads me to a site explaining why Germans should invest in Romania.  That has nothing to do with the percentages or any claims that Romania belongs in Central Europe. --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you can understand that without references, your edits prove to be POV: and there is a huge issue here with the lack of neutrality. Until you can provide a valid reference for your "research", Romania will be removed. If the edit reverts continue, I will request an admin to become involved through the dispute revolution method. --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WHERE is the link that proves that? I'm done discussing this with you as it's obvious that it's going nowhere.  It's time to get some outside help.  --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

a) Stop reverting peoples edits. It's agreed by most people (excluding you and your other accounts) that Croatia and Romania are SOMETIMES considered Central European. b) Bosnia-Herz. and Italy were part of the aforementioned kingdoms, and should be on the Culturally Central European list. Don't agree? Change the definition of the "Culturally Central European" area. As long as though Kingdoms/empires are mentioned, and those states belonged to them, then they should be on the list. Only makes sense. c) If Croatia and Romania are both part of Central Europe according to you, why are you removing Croatia from the "States" chart? d) If you keep up the edit war, Ill request the page to be protected (remember the 3 edits per 24 hr. rule as well). Thanks. --Buffer v2 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you suffering from PARANOIA? I'm not Olahus and he's not me. As for the rest, it will remain as it is: Romania is a central european country.Panel 2008 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * a)Sometimes? Romania is not a Balkan county, so what is it than? Don't forget, Romania is a Carpathian country (and the most important too!), as well as the most important Danubian country.
 * b)Bosnia is a Balkan country, Italy is a mediterranian Southern European country.
 * c)You can add Croatia if you want to.
 * d)Just try me.
 * --Olahus (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Olahus, about Bosnia and N. Italy. Belgium isn't Central European yet it's on that list.  It's obviously Western European.  The section says CULTURALLY CENTRAL EUROPEAN.  The criteria is having been part of Central European Empires.  Any country that has belongs on the list because they've been influenced by the culture of the empires.  IT'S POV to randomly pick out countries that have been belonged to these empires and leave others out.  Just because it's in the Balkans or it's a mediterranean country does not matter: if it did, then please remove Belgium, France etc. Seeing what I've seen from you, you won't budge, because you're way too close minded.  You need to learn how to compromise.  The fact that you keep reverting the "sometimes Croatia and Romania are considered..." is not fair game play.  This isn't your encyclopedia.. just remember that.
 * And P.S. yes Romania is partly in the balkans as well. Take care.--Buffer v2 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How come Romania belongs to Balkans since no Balkans there is in Romania? And no, it's not balcanic at all. You seem to have some prejudice against Romania.Panel 2008 (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Buffer, Romania is indeed located partially in the Balkan Peninsula. But only the Dobrudja region: 6.5% of the countries surface. What's about the "rest" of the surface, 93.5%? Don't forget, Romania is mainly a Carpathian country. 2/3 of those mountains are located in Romania. Romania is also the most important Danubian country: 28.9% of its course is flowing through Romania.--Olahus (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Im glad you came to your senses and fixed the Bosnia/Italy thing in the Culturally European section Ohalus. Panel 2008, I have a talk page. If you wish to talk to me, talk to me on there. And no I'm not prejudiced against Romania. --Buffer v2 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I got you Buffer using socks. Marc KJH (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Olahus, this troll/vandal has opened a CheckUser on you, Panel and me. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Olahus. Marc KJH (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Imagefromatlas1.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Imagefromatlas1.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Imagefromatlas2.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Imagefromatlas2.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Imagefromatlas3.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Imagefromatlas3.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Imagefromatlas4.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Imagefromatlas4.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Imagefromatlas5.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Imagefromatlas5.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Imagefromatlas6.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Imagefromatlas6.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Imagefromatlas7.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Imagefromatlas7.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete fact tags, thanks
Please stop deleting fact tags. Saying that it has been "discussed" on the talk page is not a sufficient reason to delete fact tags. In case there would be a consensus to do so, fine, but there is none. You have stated why think the tags should be removed, but that doesn't give you the right to remove them just like that. Provide sources for the facts or gain a consensus on the talk page before reverting again. JdeJ (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. I don't know how hard it can be to understand that fact tags are not to be removed unless you provide sources. You haven't done so, and your constant removal of tags is just a tiresome POV-pushing campaign. Please read Wikipedia's policies and start contributing with information instead of your personal opinions. The whole idea with tags is that vague and unclear statements should be sourced JdeJ (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't know what NeroN BG has done or not. If he has vandalised the article, report him. However, him behaving badly is no excuse for others to do so. And you have not added sources for the tagged claims. If you think you have, please check commonly read articles (London, Germany, New York) to see how to properly source. There are many very vague statements in the article, and you provided no source to back them up. I've listed some of them on the talk page. Please take the time to discuss changes instead of just deleting tags all the time. JdeJ (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Block notice
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Information about the Balkans
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, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
Please avoid personal attacks on specific users, such as this one. May I note in passing that given your behaviour at Central Europe where you repeatedly delete tags you don't like without ever providing sources, it might be a good idea not to accuse other users. JdeJ (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea for you to stop stalking and harrasing users. Now you followed Olahus's edits and started an edit war. All your edits will be reverted and I urge you to stop the edit war. Marc KJH (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC against stalker JdeJ
See please here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JdeJ Marc KJH (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

falsified map
please, do not falsify data. CIA World Factbook does not place Romania in Central Europe, as you perfectly know. You can prepare a map based on other sources, but don't delete a sourced information. Btw, many of the sources you provided are good - as long as they are clearly about Central Europe and not Median Europe, I'm sure there is a civilized way to incorporate some of them. Pundit | utter 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source. I thought the map is falsified because you did not give the source, and the CIA World Factbook does not recognize Romania as Central European. Since you provided the link, I believe it should be fine to ADD the map (but not delete the existing one, because it bases on a valid source, "CIA World Factbook"), with giving the proper source (Texas University - please note, that these maps are not taken from here and they cannot be attributed to CIA). All this can be done though only if you are able to prove that the picture has a GPL/GNU license, otherwise it is a copyright infringement. Pundit | utter  01:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory and slanderous accusations made by Olahus against EconomistBR
The insults and defamatory accusations made by Olahus are designed to create hostility and edit warring. Olahus benefits from edit warring.
 * Olahus calls EconomistBR vandal:"Those 3 users vandalized hardly the article"
 * Olahus calls EconomistBR ignorant:"EconomistBR, a user from Brazil who knows as much about Europe, as I know about Bhutan"
 * Olahus calls EconomistBR dictator: "Not to say that he insists to make his own rules on Wikipedia"
 * Olahus ridicules EconomistBR as a person: "it shold be removed, because doesn't match to mister EconomistBR's rules."
 * Olahus accuses EconomistBR of having bias:"EconomistBR doesn't show the intention to include them in the article because they don't match with his personal point of view."
 * Olahus calls user EconomistBR corrupt: "Economist BR is also not engaged to provide serious sources"

I demand an apology over these false accusations and smears. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  19:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that EconomistBR may be reducing your remarks to one-words a bit too hastily (insisting on making own rules is not necessarily dictatorship, etc.), but in essence I agree that you are going way too far. Assume good faith. Apologies would definitely help in calming the atmosphere :) I also believe they would be appropriate (please note that I am a third party to this particular dispute). Pundit | utter  01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JdeJ (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't ever delete my comments

 * You have no right to delete my comments.


 * I have the right to write whatever I want when I want.


 * You must think that you are superior to me just because I come from Brazil. We are equal.


 * Honestly, who the hell do you think you are?


 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars
Edit wars are bad. We've got a policy against them and everything. I have fully protected the article Central Europe, and am formally reminding you about the WP:3RR policy. Further infractions will result in blocking. - Philippe 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Balkans Animation
Hi, Esemono! I don't like to say this, but map has a mistake: the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia are not mentioned in the map at all. They never belonged directly to the Ottoman Empire, but they always were vassal to the Ottoman Empire (like Serbia since 1817). Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded to your question here -- Esemono (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Map
I've re-instated the map with a new more informative caption. Cheers. -- L a v e o l  T 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Romany vs. Romani
Personally, I don't care that much but wikipedia says names should be chosen based on usage. Britannica isn't irrelevant, but it doesn't make the final decision.

This article suggests that, while "Romany" is older, "Romani" is now more common and adopted by the United Nations and EU.

Google comparisons aren't definitive either, but for the record, Romani yields 3 million hits, whereas Romany yields only 1 million. I had to filter out "Romania" which may have had a slight effect. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right about "români" - I didn't take that into account. Note, however, that Romany is also a disambig page. I don't think either is more accurate, and it's hard to tell which spelling is more common. I'm not going to put up a fight, but since you seem to have made these changes unilaterally without debate and, IMHO, without a convincing argument, you might find others who want to revert. Then again, maybe no one else cares either. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
You've been named as an involved party in a Mediation Cabal case: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Central Europe. Your input is appreciated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Roma people
Hi. Your edit to Roma people included changing "Romani" to "Roma" in quotes that are attributed to external sources. I've checked the sources and they use "Romani", so could you revert the parts of your edits that changed the quotes? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just to make it clear, I'm referring to the quote that starts "included efforts by social services to control the birth rate...". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the maps
I really appreciated the 2 maps you added at Agriculture in Brazil, each map speaks 1,000 words and will really further the understanding of Agriculture in Brazil.

I now look foward to retributing this favor by adding information to a Romanian related article. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  04:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Did someone steal your map?
Hi, I really like like all the work you put into making maps! I just saw what looks like somebody trying to steal one of your maps and claim it as his own. This is the map the guy uploaded and then inserted into the article instead of your map. To me, it looks like a clear case of copy-violation and in that case, the guy should be warned. Just thought to inform you, have a nice day and pe curând. JdeJ (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The maps you uploaded are described as "your own work". However, it does not seem to be true - you seem to have used contours from somebody else's graphics (apologies if indeed you single handedly drawn the borders). Please, have a look at how the copyrights can be described in derivative works (if it is based on something, you should describe it as own work, but deriving from the source): example. Pundit | utter  17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean is - you've taken the gray contours, they should be attributed to the original author (you did not sit and draw the borderlines by yourself) :) Pundit | utter  21:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

map in Eastern Europe
I think that the green areas in this map are confusing, perhaps it would be better to fill them with gray or describe in more details. Pundit | utter 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why I'm suggesting that you delete the greens. Also, please see my comments above about describing derivative works. cheers Pundit | utter  18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the green should be deleted simply because Wikipedia does not have an article for Romano-Hellenic Division, how will readers see the totality of the UN's defitnion if we don't present it? IMO the Baltic Division and the Romano-Hellenic Division should be present at the map in order to inform readers as to how the UNGEGN sees Europe.
 * I know it's a long shot, but IMO even the Norden Division should be added.


 * I would also like to thank Olahus for improving the map at the EE article by adding East Central and South-East Europe Division. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that UNGEGN's definition can not be represented in a map?
 * I think we should try because right now we are teh ones deciding that Bulgaria is on EE and not on South-Eastern Europe.
 * Couldn't we paint Ukraine and Bulgaria using 2 colors? ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be interested in...
Contributing to a special Romanian project named Enciclopedia României? Ask me if you need details. --Alex:Dan (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. do you have the e-mail activated here? --Alex:Dan (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Buffer is using socks again
See page. Panel 2008 (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Panel 2008's paranoia is getting the best of him. I'm the alleged sock, and he's talking nonsense. Do a check of the IP, if you like. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Moldova
As I hate to be seen as having goaded someone into WP:3RR (of which you are duly aware), I suggest you revert your last edit, before anyone else notices. --Illythr (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you quoted a heavily nationalist source without good reason: Legality is always in the eye of the beholder. Cession is generally done at gunpoint anyway, so what legality can be there? --Illythr (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Threats? You broke 3RR while fully aware of its consequences (first edit, reverts:,, , ). However, by AGF, I assumed that you might've overlooked this, and done the last one by mistake, so I gave you the chance to undo it, instead of reporting. So, where's the threat? --Illythr (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Including that (note the first change)? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I never actually claimed impartiality, except in cases when I have no knowledge of the situation.
 * As for Flux, actually, that little passage you brought in says it all: "fraud", "crime" etc. --Illythr (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment in wrong place
'''What the hell is this??? Why do you call me a " a possibly banned user"???''' --Olahus (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, when you comment on a new subject on someone's talk page, create a new section (and please don't use ugly, obtrusive red letters -- I can understand English just fine). Second, I did not call you a possibly banned user; you need to pay more attention to the history of that article. --  tariq abjotu  21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Notification of sanction
Further, while I'm here, let me add that, in light of Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, you are now being placed on revert parole -- one revert, per page, per week (except reversions of obvious vandalism) for five weeks (until July 14 (UTC)). You were warned about this case in April, and yet you have returned to your disruptive edit and revert pattern. Violation of the revert parole may lead to blocks. --  tariq abjotu  21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing me with somebody else.--Olahus (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(Regarding your post to Tariq's page) Note that the Digwuren case applies to you anyway... --Illythr (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Digwuren case? Are you kidding? ;) We both would match here :). But let's return to Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. --Olahus (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean, while Macedonia restrictions may or may not apply due to geographic reasons (check this out), the Digwuren case extends to all of Eastern Europe. So it's probably best to drop the issue, as the most it will bring to you will be the correction of the ArbCom decision reference. Unless, of course, your issue is purely about "putting" Moldova into the Balkan region, in which case I agree with you - it is rather odd. If Turkey and Moldova are included, why not Ukraine, which has a tiny piece of land southeast of Moldova? --Illythr (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldova is not a part of the Balkan Peninsula. I think this is clear enough for both of us. --Olahus (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. What is not clear is what you are trying to accomplish on Tariq's talk page. --Illythr (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I try to accomplish o Tariq's talk page that the Requests for arbitration/Macedonia can't be applied in issues concerning Moldova. --Olahus (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, this will only cause him to change Macedonia ArbCom decision to the Digwuren one, which does apply to all of Eastern Europe. At best. I just don't see the point. --Illythr (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case he should do it and he should include all the other users invoved here: Xasha and Illythr.--Olahus (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not spotted at violating 3rr, accusing editors who don't agree with me of vandalism, ignoring talk pages until threatened with progressive blocks or generally revert warring for the sake of it (mainly due to me being a Wikisloth, I guess). In fact, some Romanian editors with opposing POVs have occasionally commended my actions and attitude in general. Nonetheless, anyone is welcome to browse through my contributions, and, should they be deemed uncivil, wp:soapy etc by an uninvolved admin, I may be added to the warned list as well. In fact, now that it contains people like Dahn, I wouldn't mind. --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Serbia
You have obviously never been to Belgrade. Zemun, Palilula and New Belgrade municipalities are the largest in Belgrade. Greater, or at least even part of the city's population lives on the northern side of the rivers. NeroN_BG

Blocked
 You have been blocked for violating your revert parole on Moldovans. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. --  tariq abjotu  00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your block has been restarted and extended to 72 hours, due to the block evasion using . --  tariq abjotu  14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article Moldovans, my edits were quoted with serious and official sources, as well as the edits of the user Illythr. Despite of those factsm the user Xasha reverted the edits without an explanation. He didn't it just once, but several times. See, ,. According to the rules of this Enciclopaedia, edits as those of Xasha are called vandalisms, and my reverts of his edits are completely legitime. I asked Xasha in his talk page to stop this vandalizing. Not just that he didn't answer my question, but he also emptied it accusing me of making personal attacks against him! Furthermore, he ignored Illythr's advice to archive the talk page and after I restored the page with my question, he changed the content of the page again.

The reason that a Romanian user (in this case: me) has changed the article Moldova was a good enough reason for Xasha to revert my edits. But I ask myself how he dares to rate my edits according to my origins as long as (or, better said, particularly because) he doesn't reveal his own origin ?!? So, is his practice honest and moral? I see in this behavior only a breach of ethics.

And, besises, Xasha's edits are mainly adversary to everything that has to do with Romania, with the Romanian people and the Romanian language. We can see it not just his edits in the articles Moldovans, Moldova, Tighina etc. E.g. here he claims that the source mentions a "Moldovan" language. But this is completely untrue, I know that because I read this book. Or here, where he removed deliberately the mentioning og the term "Tighina" (note: Tighina is the Romanian designation of the city and even today, the Moldovans use even today mostly this designation)

In another cases, he askes an user about the negative aspects about Romania's rule in Bessarabia, by asking him about "material about that period's abuses". That's what he wants. He obviosly is not intereted in making a balanced article. He only wants to denigrate Romania again (as he usually does).

I demand from the administratord (but especially from the administartoir who blocked me) to unblock me imediately and to start a check concerning the user Xasha, to see in how far he respected the rules of this enciclopedia. Tariqabjotu, before you blocked me after Xasha's demand, you shold verify which one of us violated the rules of this enciclopedia. Which one of us deleted referenced information??? Wasn it Xasha or I??? Just take a better look! So, why did you block me? Because that was Xasha's wish? Actually, who is Xasha to benefit of more rights than other users?

Concerning Macedonia: What do I have in common with this ????? Please explain me, I really don't understand. At the beginning I thought you confused me with some other user who were involved in an edit war concerning Macedonia. But, as you can see, it's not the case here. So, please explain me what is going on here. I thing I have the right to know it. Or do I not?

Last but not least: I an definately not this guy. Maybe there is somebody wants to block me definately which such edits. Would you accuse me now of block evasion for every edits made from various ip-adresses?!? Please verify the ip adress and the location and you will see that you were not right. This blocking was undeserved. Please undo your blocking. Thanks. --Olahus (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Request
Hi! I saw some nice maps on your userpage. Could you help me to edit some maps regarding WW2? --Feierabend (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I sent you an e-mail. --Feierabend (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered your e-mail.--Feierabend (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminding
Tariqabjotu, I expect an answer. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To what? --  tariq abjotu  20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[From a previous conversation:]


 * Moldova is not a Balkan country. At least, in according to the most common definitions of this region, it is by far not a Balkan country. This map is obviously an original research and the author did'n mention any source of the map (actually, what source could he have at all? ). --Olahus (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as someone above mentioned, I could move the restriction to the case encompassing all of Eastern Europe, not just the Balkans, if that's what you want. --  tariq abjotu  10:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean to apply this for the entire Eastern Europe?
 * Another question: why didn't you sanction the user Xasha too?--Olahus (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Olahus. Look a few threads up on my talk page, where you commented. Also look a few threads up on your own talk page, where someone specifically pointed to you the ArbCom case I'm talking about and accurately predicted I would just propose changing the location of the sanction. Why does this matter to you? Further, the reason I didn't include Xasha or anyone else is that their disruption did not appear to be as widespread as yours. I'm not going to do anything now either. --  tariq abjotu  11:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion that Xasha's edits disruptions did not appear to be as widespread as mines? E.g. regarding the article Moldovans, my edits were quoted with serious and official sourcesDespite of those factsm the user Xasha reverted the edits without an explanation. He didn't it just once, but several times. See, ,. According to the rules of this Enciclopaedia, edits as those of Xasha are called vandalisms, and my reverts of his edits are completely legitime. I asked Xasha in his talk page to stop this vandalizing. Not just that he didn't answer my question, but he also emptied it accusing me of making personal attacks against him! Furthermore, he ignored Illythr's advice to archive the talk page and after I restored the page with my question, he changed the content of the page again.--Olahus (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "According to the rules of this Enciclopaedia, edits as those of Xasha are called vandalisms, and my reverts of his edits are completely legitime."


 * Precisely why I don't feel the need to sanction Xasha. Xasha's edits are not vandalism; they are edits within a content dispute, and so your edits are not in anyway legitimate. At the time of the application of the sanction, you were edit-warring on Moldovan language‎, Moldovans‎, and Bendery -- multiple articles -- and not just with Xasha. Like I said, I'm not going to sanction Xasha at this moment. If you think something needs to be done, take your issue up at WP:AE. --  tariq abjotu  22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic
Hm, I think I'm getting close to understanding your motivation there. Can you sketch out the difference between "nation" and ethnicity", from your point of view? --Illythr (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * POV: We are all driven by POV, whether explicit, or implicit. When someone claims to be the most neutral, he's often the greatest POV-pusher of all involved (that or he really has no idea about what's going on).
 * in the sense I mostly occur the sense of this term: This makes no sense. If it's easier for you to converse in German, feel free to use it instead.
 * Questionnaire: then I will have to ask for a clarification of this ambiguity. If my citizenship is required, I have no choice but to copy what is written in my passport. If, on the other hand, the question is about my ethnicity, then I may choose one out of those I am affiliated with or even make something up. In western official papers, only citizenship matters, with ethnicity usually being a personal thing, like religion (although religion is often asked too, especially in localities where one religion is dominant). Not so in post-Soviet countries, where the question of citizenship was redundant for a long time and nationality always meant ethnicity. In the case of that census, this ambiguity was effectively dealt with, simply by asking about citizenship in a separate question, with over 95% respondents replying "Moldovan", as stated in their passports. --Illythr (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nationality is often interpreted as ethnicity" would be way too complicated, not to say very odd. Like "Automobiles are often called cars". It it evident in this case (all alternatives eliminated), so I don't see a reason to confuse the reader.
 * That the official policy of Moldova is to regard Moldovans as a separate ethnicity is indisputable. Or at least, I am yet to see a notable source disputing that the ruling Party of Communists (boo!) promotes that. However, many within the official structure resist this, most notably, the CDPP, making the issue controversial. Instead of the generic "often" or "sometimes", the article should identify the specific political forces lobbying both sides of the dispute. There is a whole section dedicated to this "Moldovan ethnos theory and the Romanian identity", which disseminates the problem, albeit in a rather awkward way. If you could rework the "Romanian identity" subsection, I'd be only thankful. As for the estimations, let's conduct a poll and see how it works out. Make a proposition on the talk page. --Illythr (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm too lazy for that. My proposal would be the current status quo. We could simply pick out your individual changes and see what people would support. Still, the thing about the separate ethnicity being invented by the commies is a no go without a NPOV source (no Dabija or the like, please) saying exactly that. The rest is more or less formulation issues. --Illythr (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
A page regarding you has bin opened up on WP:ANI. Smith Jones (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Baseodeux
Yes, I'd seen that. Given the previous consensus and all the talks you guys had to go through to get it done, I'd say report it to WP:Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents. Make sure you include diffs, the Medcab case, and the section on the talk page where the consensus was reached. They've done nothing else than to mess with that article, so they'd probably qualify as a vandal account. Still, since it's not blatant vandalism, I'd go to AN/I and see what they say. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha
Given that the user was blocked two days ago, and the dispute appeared to be resolved (for now), can I ask why you've brought it up again? I am unaware of anything Xasha has done to be disruptive since being blocked. Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds exciting. Despite all that, I think the page of deleted talk messages was a bit much, so thank you for having it deleted; it popped up on the list of Unblock requests, which is what caught my eye. I'll add the articles you list to my watchlist, just in case. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!
...for calling me a Stalinist! You see, I'm somewhat fond of gathering labels people throw my way, but unfortunately, only permanently blocked sockpuppeteers tend to say anything really interesting about me, and that doesn't count as much as the same by established users. That particular one was used by a certain Finnish Bonny wannabe, and although he did it in a most entertaining way, he is banned, making his accusations somewhat worthless. So, thanks again for the refresher! If you'd like to prove my Stalinist agenda to me - by all means, do so - my talk page is all yours (within the bounds of reason, of course).

PS: On a somewhat more serious note, I hope you guys realize how discrediting all these accusations are to your respective causes. The first one to drop them will probably the one to carry on his editing. At first I thought you had Xasha somewhat at a disadvantage, but your glorious remark on the German Wikipeda about all Russians being Stalinists had just equalized my bets on which one of you is going to win the race to the permablock. --Illythr (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
As you've carried your feud with User:Xasha to another article and have started sterile revert-warring on Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic too, I've done what I said I would do and blocked both of you, 48h each. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked again. Two weeks. This time I see clearly that it is you who is following Xasha all over the place. This is wikistalking. I can also see that there are issues with Xasha's editing, but you are very certainly not the right person to try to tackle them. Leave him be. Moreover, I am now firmly convinced your editing is at least as tendentious as his. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What is wikistalking?--Olahus (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Following somebody around, watching all his edits systematically and opposing him everywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't oppose Xasha everywhere, but only on the article where I didn't agree with his edits. Here some exemples:
 * On the article Culture of Moldova, I inserted the information from the homepage of the Moldovan Ministry of Culture and Tourism. I put also a weblink on this page (to the section of the External links). What did Xasha? He reverted my entire edit and also the weblink. Why did he do it?
 * And concerning this article, Xasha's edits are a legitimation of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. The trivializing of the following Soviet occupation in the Baltic states, Poland and Bessarabia is extremely POV-is. He tries to legitimate the Soviet occupation period using weasel words like "capturing" instead of "liberating", "recaptured" instead of "reoccupied" and so on. Remember that Bessarabia, the region where Bălţi is located was ceded by Romania to the Soviet Union in 1947 on the Paris Peace Treat. So, if the Soviets occupied Bessarabia in 1940, what did the Romanians do in 1941? Didn't they liberate the town from the Soviet occupation? Why did Xasha replace the term "liberating" with the term "capturing"?
 * And now the most important article: Moldovans, where he fights his battles not just with me, but also with other users like Vecrumba and TSO1D. For ideas that he doesn't agreee with, he wants more than one source, but for his own claims, a single source is enough to change the text. But notice a difference between Xasha and his opponets (Olahus, TSO1D, Vercrumba): Xasha also deletes the sources brought by his opponents. The most disputed source by him is the number of Moldovans in Romania estimated in this text. They are, of course, some sections in the text he agrees with and he uses them very well to impose his point of view. See here an example of what I mean concerning the infobox of the article:
 * 19:20, 17 July 2008 : The infoboy contains also the estimated datas (I also added the tag "disputed"). I included the estimated number of Molodvans in Romania because the higest number of Moldovans live actually in Romania and the core of the Moldovan Principality in located in Romania. However, I also added the tag "Disputed" in the infobox, since Xasha didn't agreee to include the number of Moldovans from Romania. (note also that the inclusion of estimated data is very usual in Wikipedia (see also the articles Rusyns, Roma people, Szekely, Basque people, Krashovani et cetera).
 * 19:22, 17 July 2008 . Xasha reverts my edit commentig that my source was unreliable and that it wopuld support an extraordinary claim, not found anywhere else. As I already wrote above: Xasha always demands from other users more than one source, while for his own claims, a single source is enough.
 * 16:05, 18 July 2008 I ask Xasha here what exactly is wrong on Vladimir Socor's article and why should he be politically motivated to say that 6-7 million Moldovans live in Romania.
 * 20:06, 18 July 2008 I also noticed Xasha in his talk page about my question from the talk page of the article Moldovans.
 * Xasha ignores my demand and he continued to change the article Moldovans 7 (seven) times after I wrote him the message in his talk page:
 * 21:33, 18 July 2008
 * 21:37, 18 July 2008
 * 22:27, 18 July 2008
 * 22:33, 18 July 2008
 * 22:40, 18 July 2008
 * 22:40, 18 July 2008
 * 22:54, 18 July 2008
 * So he would have time enough to answer my request, but he preffered to revert the edits of the users TSO1D and Vercrumba.
 * Notice also that I didn't modify the article Moldovans after I demanded him in his talk page (on 20:06, 18 July 2008) to clarify the issue. But what did he instead of answering my question in order to clarify the issue? He wrote a message on the talk page of the administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise accosing me for varous things.
 * And what did Future Perfect at Sunrise? He blocked me immediately for 2 weeks.
 * And did Xasha answer for my request? No, he didn't. --Olahus (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

However I clearely don't intend to argue with Xasha anymore. This issue broght me lot of mess and damaged my reputation undeservedly because I was several times blocked because of this user. Enough is enough. I think in Wikipedia they are lots of better things to do than edit warring. I won't feed the troll anymore, whatever it costs. --Olahus (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if anybody could copy my last 2 edits on this page (the edits from 11:54, 19 July 2008 and from 12:09, 19 July 2008) into this discussion. --Olahus (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Map
Hi! There is a discussion about one of your maps here. --Feierabend (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I didn't know about this discussion. Unfortunately I am blocked until friday and I can edit only my own talk page, not the talk page of other users or other articles. But, what else can I say? Buffer is just demonstrating again his rude attitude toward user which opinons contradits with his Serbian nationalist POV (and it's not the first time he is doing this). He removed the map from the article despite of the fact that the discussion isn't ended yet. The map wasn't posted in the article few day ago, but it was already there since April. He also ignored deliberately the indication of the user TheMightyQuill to announce me about it in my talk page. --Olahus (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban
Per the thread at, (you) and  are banned from all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania, expires in 6 months. This does not apply to Romanian and Moldovan articles on other topics, such as geography in Moldova and Romania. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can participate in talk page discussions, just stay civil. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhmm...ok.--Olahus (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re
The article discusses the independent principality of Translyvania which did cease to exist and had completely different borders (several counties difference, Partium etc) than the administrative/geographical unit Translyvania whithin Hungary for example. The article has a well defined scope of dealing only with 1571-1711 several other articles are already in place for discussing other periods. So the article deals with the independent principality of Transylvania (which explains why Austrian history template is inappropriate) within a well-defined time frame as a state and not as a geographical region. Hobartimus (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also a comparsion with Wallachia for example is not really the same thing as PR of TR had complete independence in internal matters choosing a ruler for example and limited space to move around in foreign policy, while the Ottomans interfered with Wallachian internal matters (chosing ruler loyal to the sultan etc). Hobartimus (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw do you also edit under IPs? Hobartimus (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Olahus, the article should include in its title the word "independent," or completed until 1867--Bluehunt (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

your fake editing
Hi,

I'd like to know why are you trying to force this fake data about Roma population in Croatia? Do you realize that 130k people in small country like Croatia would represent minority almost as big as Serbian? Please use you logic and whats more important use realiable source (like Croatian buereau for statistic, official population data etc.).

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danniboizg (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Bulgarian Empire
That thing you are trying to push is ridicuolous and I explained it to you in an e-mail several month ago to which you did not answer. --Gligan (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Second Empire was one and the same state during its whole existence. How can you imagine a Vlach-Bulgarian Empire to exist in the 14th century and wage war against Wallachia? Also Kaloyan claimed that he must receive the imperial title of his ancestors Simeon, Peter I and Samuil during his negotiations with the Pope. Theodore changed his name to Peter IV after Peter I as is all leaders of Bulgarian uprisings against the Byzantines (Delyan - Peter II, Constantine Bodin - Peter III). And don't start again with Ruse. It has never ever been in Romania. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Those Empires you are talking about were called like that during their whole existence while such thing as Vlach-Bulgarian Empire did not exist in the 14th century for example. In that logic why don't you call the Serbian Empire Greek-Serbian Empire as the title of Dushan was Tsar of the Greeks and Serbs as the title of Kaloyan was Tsar of Bulgarians and Vlachs?


 * For Ruse - first add the Turkish and Bulgarian name of Bucharest and then we might reconsider the matter :-) --Gligan (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That name just has no place there - it was invented by the Romanians in the 19th century when Bulgaria was still under Ottoman rule and had more important matters that studying its history - and was accepted by the Britannica which I think existed in that time. I repeat - in that logic you should call the uprising of 1072 Bulgarian-Serbian because our Emperor then was a Serb but it is Bulgarian uprising; you should call Wallachia Cumano- or Bulgaro- Wallachia because its nobility was of Bulgarian and Cuman origin. And that name is not an alternative for the Second Bulgarian Empire because for instance you can't say "In 1256 the Vlach-Bulgarian Empire made a humiliating peace with the Byzantine Empire". During Simeon who called himself Emperor of Bulgarians and Romans the country was not Romano-Bulgaria. The official title of the Kings of Spain was "King of Castilla, Leon, Aragon, count of Catalonia........." But the country is called just Spain.


 * Ruse again - since 1878 Romania and before that Wallachia were officially part of the Ottoman Empire. And in your logic why should Ruse which has never been in Romania and the Romanians never ruled the lands around the city should have a Romanian name (which is again Ruse) and Bucharest (the territory of that city used to be Bulgarian before it was mentioned but still it was) should not have a Bulgarian name having in mind that until 18-19th century the official language of Wallachia was Old Bulgarian written in Cyrillic alphabet.


 * That map is very nice, I like maps in that style. I have seen similar Russian editions from the 50s, 60s and 80s but not that. Can you upload some more maps from there (including of Bulgaria and Spain) or tell me where I can find such maps (not necessarily from that year). --Gligan (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with the Second Bulgarian Empire because that name is not applicable for the country as a whole as I had previously said. For instance there is no (and there must not be) a mention that the First Bulgarian Empire was known as Macedonian or Slavo-Macedonian Empire as some people claim to have been after 971. As Kaloyan claimed that he was a successor of Simeon, Peter I and Samuil that would mean that his country would have the same name which according to Byzantine chronicles dating from 7th century was Bulgaria. The term Second Bulgarian Empire is equivalent to Second French Empire or Third French Republic.


 * Concerning Ruse, it should have the Turkish name but for instance there is no Bulgarian name for Odrin, or Solun, or a number of cities in northern Greece and Turkish Thrace although those cities were more important for the Bulgarian history than Ruse was for the Turkish history. That is why I keep removing Turkish and Greek names of the Bulgarian cities unless there is very significant population that currently lives there such as Kardzhali.


 * I would be grateful for any maps you can find or upload ;-) Are as keen on maps as I am? I have made several hundred maps on hand (of course with bad quality)... --Gligan (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still don't thing that name should stay in the introduction because it is just not applicable for the state. The only compromise I can think of is to mention it that way.

The map that you have uploaded is very nice, I will definitely include it in a suitable article when I find time. It is good that you can make maps on the computer but I am not skillful enough to make them even on paint. My miserable attempts look like or ... --Gligan (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Buna ziua,
Ti-asi fi recunoscator daca ai putea arunca o privire asupra articolului Controversy about national identity in Moldova, creat de mine si modificat de Illythr (si poate de altii, pâna vei citi acest mesaj) si sa intervii cum socotesti mai bine, macar în domeniul formal (Illythr scrie ca referintele cer toate verificare, ce înseamna asta?). Sunt foarte începator pe Wiki englez care pare foarte riguros mai ales pe planul formal, uneori pierzând astfel din vedere evidenta, sau poate înnecând-o în amanunte si citate.

În ceeace priveste Republica Moldova, amanuntele si citatele nu-s fara POV. Majoritatea tind a sustine procesul în curs de re-creare a unei identitati locale, nu ca in Elvetia si Belgia pe baza teritoriala (identitatea tine de tara si nu împiedica apartenanta culturala si lingvistica la sferele germana, franceza, italiana sau nederlandeza) ci pe o baza izolationiasta si separatista (identitatea tine de proiectul politic de a desparti cu orice pret vorbitorii limbii Daco-Romane din R. Moldova de cei din România, dar nu se atinge de cultura rusa, ucraineana s.a.m.d. din tara).

Multumesc pentru orice contributie. Cu bine,--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

false editing yet again
Will you finally answer why do you keep on editing correct data with fake data? Danniboizg (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

link
http://www.vlada.hr/nacionalniprogramromi/Clanak_NPR/Obiljezja-Roma-u-Republici-Hrvatskoj.html

There you have it, you asked me for link to prove my claims. It doesn't get more official than Croatian Government website.Danniboizg (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Dear Olahus!

Please finish the vandalism in Hungary's article. If you continue we will send messages for the administrators, and that's sure you will be blocked for long time. We also don't "attack" the Romania article. Don't insult more the Hungarians.

Best regards. MagyarTürk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

All right. I believe You. I just got that information that you followed vandalism in Hungary's article. Excuse me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Regiunea Cernauti Article
Hi sorry for answering so late but I was on vacation till now. Let me know if there are still problems with that article. AFAIK use Xosha has been quite disruptive in most articles dealing with Romanians/Moldovans etc... Dapiks (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the Moldovan language merge
Based on the discussion in this article's talk page, I made a proposal and gave its rationale. You are receiving this standard message because during the last 12 months you have editted either this article or its talk page, or both. Dc76\talk 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Western world
Hi,

Will you please check the article, and maybe create a new map? According to the article Turkey is a part of the Western world, but not so Romania and Bulgaria.--Bluehunt (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Clash of Civilizations
Why do you keep re-adding that retarded map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trkgnd (talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not our business to say weather the map is retarded or not. The map is made in accordance with the map from the original work. --Olahus (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE
Could you please stop your Devanagari shtick at Romani people? I have asked you for a reference, you couldn't provide one, so you should drop it, ok? Seeing that you invoke WP:SOURCES in edit summaries of your own, I will assume you understand what I am talking about. Alternatively, feel free to still come up with some sort of reference after all, there is no deadline. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered in your talk page. --Olahus (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)