• [Archive]
• [Archive II]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, I'm not seeking adminship at the moment. Think of somebody else, guys! How about User:AdiJapan? --Alexander 007 14:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lasa ca accepta, numai ii ia putin timp.-- Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multumesc! :) o sa invingem :) .-- Bonaparte

Mersi Anittas! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting me in.User:Dpotop

Sir/madam - you are out of line! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CIVIL. Try to be better than the people you rail against ;) Sam Spade 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go to hell. --Anittas 21:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bound for a better place (righteous glory), but thank you for the advice all the same. Sam Spade 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acum am ajuns si sa moderez pagina istoria belarusului. fac o treaba buna acolo. sa te uiti si tu.-- Bonaparte talk 13:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hei! Fii pe faza! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language#Vote_for_limiting_user.27s_Node_ue_ability_to_edit_the_article_about_Moldovan_language -- Bonaparte talk 19:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=embassador --- Same thing. --Anittas 06:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ambassador": 54,900,000 Google hits. "Embassador": 104,000 Google hits. And our own article starts out "An ambassador, rarely embassador…" Trust me, "ambassador" would be the more likely spelling by a contemporary educated native speaker. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that you don't trust me, to know which spellings are common and uncommon in my native language? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for the message. The article is looking pretty good. From the description, it sounds a little like Cannae (centre deliberately giving way and encirclement). Some ideas - it would be nice to have more details on the troops - numbers of cannon and horse, types of arms (swords, spears, etc), what kind of cannon - together with a map of the area of the battle (where the forces started, how they manoeuvred, etc).

It would be a good idea to ask the people at WikiProject Military history what they think, and to go through Wikipedia:Peer review before WP:FAC.

Good luck! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, don't be fooled by "Julia Radulescu". I have serious doubts that she is Romanian after having read these edits made by her in April of 2005:[1] and [2]. Alexander 007 13:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a rule against people impersonating a nationality on Wikipedia. Anybody who asks "Are Moldova and Moldavia close together?", yet claims to have immigrated from Romania to America in 1999 (!), is a liar, I'm sorry. Alexander 007 13:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She is also User:RomaniaIsntCool, and after she vandalized Romania's site eventually she got blocked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RomaniaIsntCool), -- Bonaparte talk 13:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the IP's? Alexander 007 14:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, she's not Romaniaisntcool. Someone else is. They actually said they would make the nick. Well, she might not be Romanian, but I see no reason to believe that she's an ex nazi. Alex, what makes you think that? --Anittas 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid possible defamation, I erased my "she may be an ex-Neo Nazi" suspicion. I did not charge that she is an ex-Neo Nazi, just that I suspect she may be or may have hung out a lot with them, because her behavior reminds me of a chick who used to date gangsters and now wears a t-shirt around town that says "Gangters are not cool". Alexander 007 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you don't care about this topic, but for those who do, I direct them to User talk:NazismIsntCool#D.C. meetup (which shows the decidedly strange way she used to color her sig--- Nazis|misn|tcool---with the middle color in dull yellow, so that what stood out at a casual glance was Nazis...tcool. This was remarked upon here:User talk:NazismIsntCool#Indeed Nazism is far from cool but your name reads like it is. Lying about one thing, who knows what else they lie about. Alexander 007 19:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She already explained that she used the colours of the Ro flag. Anyway, I don't agree with your latest message on her talkpage. I think it was stupid! What do you mean it incites? Incites who? Nazis? So f:.ucdfking what? --Anittas 19:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, she's full of ****. She didn't explain why she divided it the way she did. I recommend a change in User Name, and so does User:Jimbo Wales. She's trolling. Alexander 007 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She did explain the usage of the colours! Jimbo recommended a nick change, but he didn't order her to. And you are speculating on everything. You got no proof of anything. Let her be. Her nickname has nothing to do with her not being Ro. --Anittas 19:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't explain why she divided it like this: Nazis|misn|tcool, instead of as one may expect: Nazism|Isnt|cool. Alexander 007 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire case is built on speculation. --Anittas 19:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What case? My case is that her User Name should be changed. Everything else doesn't involve Wikipedia. Alexander 007 19:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your case about she using colours the wrong way or that she incited Nazis. That's BS. She should not change her nickname. In fact, perhaps I'll change my nick to a similar nickname. What's with you, dude? Are you turning into a Wiki bureaucrat? --Anittas 19:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said: (moving another honorific version of his name; more appropriate to mention here than at Republic of Moldova)

Why would it be appropriate at all, to mention this in the Republic of Moldova article? What does one thing have to do with another? --Anittas 05:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. I removed it from Republic of Moldova because it was not appropriate there, but noticed that it was missing from the Stephen III of Moldavia article, where it was appropriate. Are you saying that Stephen should not be mentioned by any name at Republic of Moldova? My understanding is that he is something of an iconic national hero there. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the longer version of his honorific, with şi Sfânt. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Joe! In this way is correct! -- Bonaparte talk 22:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not aware of it, this edit of yours reads, to me, as anti-Semitic. In fact, try as I might, I can't construe it any other way. I suggest that you strike through it, and apologize to the person at whom it was directed. And if I see you make a similar edit again, whether about Jews or any other ethnicity, regardless of whom it is addressed to, be assured that I will start an RfC, and that my goal in doing so will be to get you banned from Wikipedia for as long a time as possible.

Almost no amount of good conduct can make up for something like this in my eyes. And if you want to consider my remarks here a personal attack, fine, we can have our RfC now. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]