User talk:Romano-Dacis

August 2008
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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility for the Holocaust
It is original research to write about the "intent" of the Romanian government without verifiable reliable sources.

It is also synthesis, a form of original research, to throw together facts to prove a point not found in other sources.

Finally, you keep deleting sourced material about Romania's role in the Holocaust.

Please stop trying to rewrite history. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what synthesis is. You can't jump to the conclusion that the number of Romanian Jews who survived the Holocaust is related to "the sympathetic attitude the Romanian government had towards the Jews" without a source that specifically makes that connection.


 * You can't write that "Jews were seen as an enemy population due to their support of the Soviets" without a reliable source that says so. You haven't provided one.


 * The fact that Antonescu denounced actions has nothing to do with Romanian responsibility for the Holocaust, nor does the question of Jew-killing was systematic or haphazard.


 * You keep deleting an official report by the Romanian government that found "Of all the allies of Nazi Germany, Romania bears responsibility for the deaths of more Jews than any country other than Germany itself."


 * Please stop trying to white-wash history. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The official report is exaggerated, that's why. For instance, Romanians did not kill more jews than Hungarians. Therefore, there is no point to keep it up if it's evidently a lie. It's like keeping up a quote about a million Persians dying at thermopylae. Anyway, I will find sources for those statements, and I'll keep placing them up. Romano-Dacis (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Responsibility for the Holocaust. If you continue undoing the edits, as well as continue adding spurious content, you are subject to being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

List of languages by first written accounts
Currently, the consensus is that the oldest document in Romanian language is Neacşu's letter. You wrote 1300s, but brought no references. What document do you claim it was written in the 1300s in Romanian? AFAIK, there were only words, no actual text is attested from before Neacşu. bogdan (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I've read in this book, Istoria Romaniei in Date, Bucuresti, 1971, about a Romanian document written nearly two centuries before Neascu's letter. I unfortunately can no longer find it but I will try to locate it.

Blakumenn
Stop adding sources in the wrong place, take the time to read the whole paragraph. The fact that the mainstream interpretation of Blakumenn or Blakomenn is Vlachs exists in the article and it is very well sourced. Stop adding bibliography barbarically. The existance of link to google books does in no way dispense you from properly inserting a scholarly reference. A book has a title, an author, an editor, a date, ISBN and indicating the page where the info is found is not optional. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the title, author, publication, and book number! I threw in the link to prevent those idiotic "verify" tags which Borsoka loves peppering the article with. Romano-Dacis (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Had you taken the time to read the paragraph on the 11th century you would have noticed that after indicating the primary sources the article actually cites both the mainstream view with a lot of sources and the minority (although the source on the minority vie - Pritsak is still missing, I'll have to look for it and add it in). Borsoka is adding "verify" tags mostly where they are needed. As I said on the talk page reference 18 is crap, the way in which the bibliogrphy is given, it shouldn't even be taken into consideration and everything based on it removed altogether. Of course, adding a lot of Ceausescu-era crap certainly does not help defending the case you seem to want to defend (I for one couldn't care less about where my ancestors were 1000 years ago). It doesn't help 'cause it drowns real arguments (like the Blakumenn stuff) into nationalist hogwash. Further more you do realise that citing the name of a primary source like "the miracles of St. Demetrius" is not referencing. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re
I thought the author was American. Oh well, my mistake, sorry. --Venatoreng (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI-notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24h for disruptive tendentious editing and persistent editing against consensus at Ion Antonescu, together with POV-pushing edits on other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalistic edit by editor 142.167.79.96
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. -- B@xter 9 09:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
 Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)