Do you have some sources for:

On the other hand, Romanian vocabulary has been strongly influenced by French and Italian in the Modern Age (see #French, Italian and other international words). At present, the lexical similarity with Italian is estimated at 77%, whereas French follows at 75%, Spanish at 72% and Portuguese at 73%.

Thanks, --Preacher, or Princelet 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=RO

"Romanian has 77% lexical similarity with Italian, 75% with French, 74% with Sardinian, 73% with Catalan, 72% with Portuguese and Rheto-Romance, 71% with Spanish. Classification: Indo-European, Italic, Romance, Eastern"

I have also corrected the datas on the Spanish and Portuguese languages.

--Olahus 10:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I must've gotten you mixed up with someone else. Sorry about that! Khoikhoi 05:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please replace the link: Palaiovlachoi - Stari Vlah. Medieval Balkan History and Toponymy ? --Olahus 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olahus, daca recensamantul ii numara separat, wikipedia ii reda ca separati. Orice discutie despre asta se poarta in alta parte. Discutia ta nui e cu mine si nu e cu wikipedia: e cu statul sarb. Ceea ce ai facut tu se cheama manipularea informatiei. Daca statul sarb a manipulat-o inaintea ta e o alta discutie. Comprende? Dahn 09:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nici statul sarb, nici cel bulgar nu a pus vreodata semnul de egalitate între vlahi şi aromâni. Vlahii sunt conform statului sârb (cât şi a celui bulgar) o populaţie romanică nedeterminabilă (sau nedeterminată), deci poate fi (teoretic) vorba atât de daco-români, cât şi de aromâni. Pe de altă parte însă, ambele în ambele state istoricii consideră că vlahii sunt persoane emigrate din Valahia în cursul secolului XVIII (istoricii români îi privesc drept urmaşii populaţiei romanice din fosta provincie romană "Dacia Ripensis"). Însă, în momentul în care ei fac această afirmaţie reconosc automat faptul ca vlahii din Serbia şi din nordul Bulgariei sunt daco-români.

Dahn, Wikipedia este o enciclopedie, nu un instrument politic sârbesc, românesc sau bulgăresc. Argumentele ştiinţifice TREBUIE să aibă prioritate în calea celor politice. --Olahus 13:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manipularea unor date oficiale in functie de puncte de vedere personale, indiferent cat de intemeiate ar fi, nu este nici dorita, nici tolerata de wikipedia. Dahn 13:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bun, dar atunci hai să intruducem datele după criterii comune:

la Serbia să fie trecut astfel: 34,576 (Romanians), 40,054 Vlachs; la Bulgaria 1,088 (Romanians), 10,566 (Vlachs). Vezi în acest sens şi datele despre românii din Ucraina, Moldova şi Rusia. --Olahus 13:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In extensp, Oltenia se refera (astazi) si la acele portiuni de peste rau care fac parte din judete oltenesti; daca tu consideri ca e necesara o mai mare exactitate (si s-ar putea sa ai dreptate), harta pe care ai facut-o arata, totusi, groaznic si arbitrar. Ce iti sugerez este sa il rogi pe User:Bogdangiusca sa-si modifice creatia ca sa arate ca tpoate celelalte harti si sa includa obiectiile tale. Dahn 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buna, si te rog sa ma scuzi pentru intarziere (am fost "backlogged"). In ceea ce priveste obiectiile tale cu privire la Oltenia, sunt de acord in cea mai mare parte - desi, asa cum am sous, as dori sa fie adaugata o mentiune in articol prin care sa se indice ca, in extenso si in mod curent (nu neaparat legitim), termenul include astazi si regiuni care nu faceau parte din Oltenia medievala (ar clarifica situatia si ar stabili ceea ce este relevant). Am exact aceleasi obiectii cu privire la asemenea utilizatori, si an special la acel utilizator - pe langa prostiile pe care le-a adaugat in tema asta, este autorul unei serii de maculatura antisemita care inca supravietuieste pe rowiki. Din fericire pentru ei, eu nu contribui la rowiki - tocmai pentru ca nu vreau sa ma leg la cap cu asemnea indivizi (daca ai dreptate cu privire la ip-uri, inseamna ca m-am intalnit deja cu el...). Dahn 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just following what Turnu Măgurele article says. If you really think the redirect is wrong, you can go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and ask for it to be deleted. Don't blank the redirect, because someone may be confused if they see the blank page by clicking on Special:Random. Resurgent insurgent 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and sorry for not replying to your previous message (it seemed that we mostly agree, and I was caught up in other issues). What the 1978 dictionary says is that Islaz is a "suburban commune". At the time, I wanted to clarify approximate location, and did not bother with the details. If you think a separate article is called for (as opposed to, say, a mention in the Turnu article or a separate section there), feel free to create it from the redirect (you know how to do that, right?). In case you do, please let me know: I have some articles which would require redirects as well. Dahn 10:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Dahn 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The map of Székely Seats that existed until the end of 19th century. Except for Aranyosszék. --KIDB 05:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Now I don't have time and energy to draw a new a larger map including Aranyosszék, however I would like to. Maybe later. This map anyway provides more accurate information than the previous ones. Actually I made it after a remark of Dahn saying that most Romanians think Székely Land is East of Targu Mures. I hope it helps. I don't think it should be renamed to Székely Seats because the expression Székely Land already existed in the 19th century and meant roughly the area in my map (+Aranyosszék). And actually the enclave officially belonging to Felső-Fehér County was also discussed as part of Székely Land in contemporary literature. --KIDB 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the article, there are differences between Vlachs, Aromanians, Serbs and Montenegrins. Also, please present a source for the geographical distribution of those people in the country. If you continue reverting, you will break Wikipedia:3RR and will be blocked. Mr. Neutron 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my last edits. Thank you. --Wallak^Talk 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. As agreed I redirected to Romanian language.--Wallak^Talk 10:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is from MAE http://www.mae.ro/index.php?unde=doc&id=5730 Ro Foreign Ministry there are between 300-1.000.000 Romanians in Serbia.--Wallak^Talk 20:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you this: do you want to have good and reliable articles about Vlachs and Romanians in Serbia? If you do, then please read the sources that I presented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romanians_of_Serbia#.40PANONIAN:_Vlachs_in_Serbia_are_Romanians._Here_are_the_proofs After reading them, I want to hear your opinion what we should do with data presented there. Also, do you think that Vlachs are notable subject to have their own article? PANONIAN 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlachs of Serbia means Romanians from Serbia. Period. --Wallak^Talk 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not asked you anything. I asked the user Olahus to read the sources and say his opinion. PANONIAN 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was polite with you. You were not. Only by saying Vlachs are not Romanians you offend Romanians and you have an old milosevic attitude against minorities.--Wallak^Talk 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why this Romanian site claim that Vlachs are not Romanians: http://www.banatul.com/info/banat-history-romanians-in-serbia.shtml PANONIAN 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again you come up with not realiable sources? Why don't you come with official ones? :) Go and search again. Or stop it, you really proved an old milosevic attitude against minorities. --Wallak^Talk 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why this source is not reliable (It is Romanian source, by the way): http://www.banatul.com/info/banat-history-romanians-in-serbia.shtml PANONIAN 20:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because since it is you who wants to change the established version, you have to provide proof of your point in the form of quotations from reputable sources (rather than your speculations) which clearly say that Vlachs from Serbia are not Romanians. Take into account again that your Gov. of Serbia recognize them after 4. November 2002.--Wallak^Talk 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panonian, I answered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romanians_of_Serbia#.40PANONIAN:_Vlachs_in_Serbia_are_Romanians._Here_are_the_proofs --Olahus 08:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olahus, can you explain also on the talk page of PANONIAN? User Dahn, tried to translate I'm not sure if he said it correctly. --Wallak^Talk 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olahus, on the talk page of PANONIAN as stated above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PANONIAN#Central_Serbia I'm not sure if Dahn translated ok. --Wallak^Talk 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olahus, Vlachs of Serbia article should always redirect to Romanians of Serbia as it is now. PANONIAN is trying to revert it, but we'll not let him do it.--Wallak^Talk 12:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered on Panonian's talk page, and detailed every element that was misconstrued. I must repeat that I view the discussion you link to an infringement of WP:OR, since it dwells on personal interpretations of mostly irrelevant material. Dahn 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ar fi bine sa tii legatura cu User:Danutz

http://members3.boardhost.com/homolje/msg/1186037096.html Posted by daniel on August 2, 2007, 8:44:56

Ultima ora: A fost inregistrat Consiliul National al Rumanilor din Serbia Negotin, Timoc, Serbia/Romanian Global News

01 august 2007 Azi 01.08.2007 la sediul din Negotin al CNRS a sosit confirmarea inregistrarii Consiliului National al Rumanilor din Serbia (in limba sarba se utilizeaza sinonimul arhaic pentru roman,“vlasi”). Consiliul reprezinta comunitatea romaneasca din Timoc si are precizat in statutul sau utilizarea ca limba materna a limbii romane literare, transmite corespondentul Romanian Global News din Timoc.Necesitatea inregistrarii acestui consiliu a fost data de faptul ca romanii din Timoc (peste 250.000) au o situatie diferita de romanii din Voivodina (circa 35.000), iar obiectivele fiecareia dintre cele doua comunitati sunt diferite. Daca cei din Voivodina au avut si au scoli si biserici in limba proprie inca de pe timpul Imperiului Austro-ungar, romanii din Timoc de mai bine de 200 de ani sunt supusi unui intens si agresiv proces de asimilare care a lasat numeroase urme in mentalitatea si onomastica comunitatii si a facut ca in zona Timocului sa nu existe scoala si biserica romaneasca. Exceptia data de bisericuta de la Malainita ca si chinurile la care este supusa de autoritatile si biserica sarba, nu fac decat sa confirme politica antiromaneasca dusa in zona pana de curand. De aceea prioritatile celor doua consilii nationale romanesti difera: in Voivodina se tipareste beletristica in limba romana si se finanteaza teatre, iar in Timoc se va invata sa se scrie si sa se citeasca in romana literara (pentru ca de vorbit se vorbeste), sa se infiinteze muzee si mass-media in limba romana. Desigur necesitatea colaborarii sincere si oneste dintre cele doua consilii nationale romanesti nu poate fi pusa in discutie, cadrul acestei colaborari urmand a fi stabilit si respectat de cele doua parti. Izolarea la care a fost supusa comunitatea romaneasca din Timoc, intretinuta abil si de complicitati ale unor grupuri de interese de la Bucuresti, a fost sparta de interesul constant pe care Presedintele Basescu l-a aratat pentru zona. Dezinformarile la care demnitarii romani (oricum neinformati asupra complexitatii problematicii din Timoc) au fost supusi ani in sir de “baieti cu ochi albastri” interesati mai mult de afacerile cu sare facute impreuna cu fosti membri ai securitatii lui Milosevic decat de soarta celor aproape 300.000 de romani din Timoc, speram sa inceteze odata cu indepartarea din sistem a unora care au intretinut aceasta dezinformare. Prin recunoasterea noului consiliu national, Serbia face un pas inainte si speram sa nu fie singurul. Presedintele Tadici mai are o promisiune de respectat, o promisiune pe care partidul sau a facut-o atunci cand a avut nevoie de sprijinul Partiei Democrate a Rumanilor din Serbia ca sa castige alegerile parlamentare. Sprijinul i-a fost acordat, si in Timoc, Partidul Democrat a castigat. Acum romanii de acolo asteapta onorarea promisiunii si numirea unui prefect din partea PDRS la Bor. Deja acest lucru se intarzie destul de mult, iar semnele neonorarii promisiunii facute ar schimba radical politica PDRS fata de Partidul Democrat si cu singuranta ar avea urmari pe termen mediu si lung asupra viitoarelor alegeri si asupra viitorului zonei. Romanii au fost pacaliti de prea multe ori in 200 de ani ca sa mai creada de aici incolo in altcineva decat in ei isisi. Si atunci ar putea prelua modelul maghiar!

http://www.romaniuitati.eu/content/view/34/45/

Olahus, see what happend.--Brickoceanmonth 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olahus, the main reason why I am reverting that is a simple one: the edit removing content was vandalism, and the decision leading to it unilateral. I have looked through all the pages you mention, but they add nothing: all I could find is that a few Romanian users rely on the tone, and not even the content, of Romanian newspaper articles to interpret Serb legislation. What you have edited in on those pages, no matter how strong you feel about it, is an infringement of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it is not for wikipedia users to decide that a concept used is not factual because they "know" it is not factual.

Whenever I check the arguments o those pages, it seems that the same notion is repeated over and over again in different guises, and that the same notion is moved to different pages once it is contradicted. Especially when such a debate/revert war involves my good friend Danutz and his pet Bonaparte (with his 1,000 magic socks), I make a note of malicious edits and revert them on sight. And, no, I do not think that you yourself are a sock - not that it would matter what I think about that. I cannot, however, fail to note all the rallying that has happened on this very talk page.

My advice is to use reliable sources, make use of them in the said articles (not for deleting the said articles), allow room for both sides, and learn to live with the other view. Dahn 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

După cum am mai spus, mi se pare corect ca articolele despre regiunile istorice să cuprindă toate definiţiile date, indiferent cât de puţin tradiţionale au ajuns aceastea să fie. Am înţeles că nu eşti de acord cu extinderea termenilor, dar nu trebuie să acordăm prioritate nici unui punct de vedere. Din această perspectivă, spun că amândouă viziunile trebuie să fie indicate cititorului. Acest lucru e valabil pentru Oltenia, aşa cum e pentru Ardeal. Dahn 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have outlined this just above, in several places. Sliding back one's version into a more or less neutral text is not the way to go. Lastly, Olahus, please don't try to game the system. Dahn (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that I have clarified elsewhere that I do not answer to projections, or in any way feel accountable for what users imagine are my motivations. If we're free to speculate, however, what interests me more is preventing this project from falling in the hands of any nationalist theory or lobby group, and for any other in any way biased one. That often includes biases to which poor argumentation feels I should adhere due to provenance, and surely includes the tight group benefiting from Bonaparte's showmanship - if you catch my drift. As for the rest: I do not understand Serbian; if that quote has anything to do with what we are discussing here, and if it outlines the "Serb POV" you keep battling against, then do revisit my earlier reply, where I tell you to learn to live with the other view. Whatever it does, insofar as it refers to the language, it is not within the scope of my reversion, which had to do with the demonym you (re)introduced willy-nilly.

Will there be anything else? Dahn (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you edit articles about Vlachs and so I have little information for you from Croatia history. We are having Statuta Wallachorum from 1630 which is writen/declared by Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor. All data on english wiki about that is writen by me in article Serbs of Croatia and this is very bad (very little). Other data about that I do not have ...Rjecina 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

olahus.olahus80@yahoo.com

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A Russian source on what? Voronin's parents? Why Russian? There should be some in Romanian... --Illythr (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected. · AndonicO ^Hail! 11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring: on Moldovans. 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I got you Buffer using socks. Marc KJH (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, as you did to Central Europe, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Template:Romanian diaspora. 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Stifle (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, 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)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks on specific users, such as this one [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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"

The insults and defamatory accusations made by Olahus are designed to create hostility and edit warring. Olahus benefits from edit warring.

I demand an apology over these false accusations and smears. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Central Europe. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, Esemono! I don't like to say this, but this 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)[reply]

Responded to your question here -- Esemono (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-instated the map with a new more informative caption. Cheers. --Laveol ^T 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2] and then inserted into the article instead of your map [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Contributing to a special Romanian project named Enciclopedia României? Ask me if you need details. --Alex:Dan (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. do you have the e-mail activated here? --Alex:Dan (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See page. Panel 2008 (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Threats? You broke 3RR while fully aware of its consequences (first edit, reverts:[4], [5], [6], [7]). 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)[reply]

Including that (note the first change)? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What the hell is this??? Why do you call me a " a possibly banned user"??? --Olahus (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- tariqabjotu 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, while I'm here, let me add that, in light of Wikipedia: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. -- tariqabjotu 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]