DerGelbeMann
Welcome
edit
|
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss contentious edits
edit
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Speedy deletion nomination of Divizia B 1990–91
edit
A tag has been placed on Divizia B 1990–91 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Timneu22 · talk 11:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Divizia B 1990–91
edit A tag has been placed on Divizia B 1990–91 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Timneu22 · talk 11:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Székely
editI see you're new here - welcome to the community. Look forward to seeing your contributions on the Székely, since that seems to be one of your interests. Hubacelgrand (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I join Hubacelgrand, please be invited to work on other Székely Land-related articles as well, I made quite a lot of edits to Székely Land settlement articles that you can follow from my contrib list. I will be happy to co-operate with you. The job needs lot of patience but is a nice one. If you have questions feel free to contact me on my talk page. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Szekely Land
editTerra Siculorum (official name) ceased to exist as a territorial-administrative unit in 1867. Nowadays it represents a cultural region of the Hungarian ethnic group, being defined by the cultural distinctiveness of the major ethnic group in the area in relation with the cultural particularities exhibited by surrounding populations. Thus if the Szekely population were to emigrate, its cultural importance in the present day would be lost (the historical one will remain), while Transylvania (your example) would continue to exist as a geographical region even if every inhabitant were to emigrate (regardless of ethnicity). There are tens, maybe hundreds of cultural regions and sub-regions belonging to the Romanian ethnic group, and thousand of such cultural areas belonging to other ethnic groups which are only sporadically mentioned. On Wikipedia, a settlement found in a clear defined historical and geographical area like Transylvania (for example) is not shown on a map of that region except where such an area still holds an administrative status (not our case). User:Rokarudi has tried such an inclusion and in this form, it represents a blatant, shameless expression of Hungarian irredentism, like it or not. Not only similar examples on Wikipedia are nonexistent but the previously mentioned user presented as sole argument the definition of the area in question on the Romania Wikipedia which can easily be changed and is probably of dubious origins. Consult [1] for more info. I am interested in hearing your opinion regarding the issue since you at least offered a reasonable argument on a revert summary recently. Amon Koth (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I had the chance to have a look at Suceava and Bacău Romanian counties which lie next to the Székely Land (Har-COV for Amon Koth). The commune section looked in such a bad shape that I felt obliged to arrange at least Baia as one of the rare examples which contained more than 2 lines. If we speak about something blatant and shameless, it is the simple fact that certain editors take no effort in improving clearly and exclusively Romanian-related stubs, but wikihounding other editors, and like a censorship department, delete and change everything that is not in line with a hardline national line. By the way, not because I would not deal with them from ideological reasons, just as an experiment, I omitted on purpose from editing those communes in Harghita county which have a strong Romanian majority (75%), just to see when the self-declared defenders of Romania will take a little effort to expand these articles from their current zero content state. I think I can wait another 100 years, or do it myself or with DerGelbeman.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- How an odd coincidence to meet you here (Wikihounding?). And who empowered you to tell me constantly what I should or should not do or what my interests are? Your version of improving articles refers to endlessly spamming the same history section instead of centralizing data and doing all kind of dubious edits which are ethnically motivated. I would rather abstain myself than doing such improvements. You have constantly accused me of being nationalistic just because you cannot back up your edits with reasonable arguments. Instead of engaging in constructive discussions you attack me personally. And just FYI Romania has ethnic minorities, just because I don't support your biased POV doesn't necessarily mean I am a Romanian. Although having such a view provides plenty of perspective on your mentality. Interestingly enough tough, you avoid discussing the issue in relevant places but barge on the page of this user to make another of your accusations. Amon Koth (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
DerGelbeMann, just to remove any confusion I restate my interest in hearing your opinion regarding the issue, if you are willing to provide it, of course. Amon Koth (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Szekely Land (Székelyföld) was for more than 500 years an autonomous territory of the K. of Hun. Like for instance Bukovina, it is a historical region, not a geographical region.
- The lead of the Suceava article specifies the belongness to Bukovina (region created only in 1775), so why wouldn't we include the part about Sz. Land where it is the case?
- We must take into consideration the current realities, not possible vadimist scenarios about a virtual en-masse Szekely emigration. Szekely Land is an ethnographical and historical region, it was and still is a special area of Transylvania.
- Many persons who visit these pages are probably ethnic Hungarians, so I think it is OK to include also the reference about the historical Sz. Land.
- On the other hand I am not against inserting, in History section, maps showing the localization of the settlements in medieval Szekely Land
- P.S. This is only my personal POV, maybe it could be good to post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania to consult other editors. In this moment the score is 2-2, so we need additional opinions. Another idea would be to take this to WP:ECCN (DerGelbeMann (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC))
- DerGelbeMann, you have severely misunderstood my example. Since the discussion has moved here [[2]] I see no reason to duplicate information on your talk page. Amon Koth (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Szekely land(dispute)
editHello, i would like to ask for your permission to move this thread on [3] for a chance to reach a consensus. Can i copy this thread(link) and your comment there as a start of the discussion?Adrian (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- You may copy it(DerGelbeMann (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC))
- Thanks. Adrian (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Trying to solve this
editConsensus not reached ?
editHello, I have read the whole section again [4] and it looks to me that we have a consensus about the "Szekely land" issue. I am correct? Can you please have a vote at the end [5] just to be clear and to avoid any further possible confusions. Thank you.Adrian (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
ANI
editHello, i would like to invite you to try to solve this dispute [6]. Consider participating please in the interest of solving this dispute. Thank you.Adrian (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Rumanized or Romanized
editHi, I see that you changed the word Rumanized to Romanized. I used the Rumanized form as English sources including the respective Wikipedia article brings its noun form as "'Romanianization or Rumanization ". So, I chose the less complicated 'Rumanized'. For most likelihood, the English usage is intended to disambiguate between a noun referring to the making Roman (Romanization) in the Roman Empire and the making Romanian (Romanianization or Rumanization) in modern Romania. I understand that the Romanian/Roumanian issue has relevance for Romanians and they prefer the first. However, we can not use Romanized as it means a different thing. I suggest you to change you edit for the best sounding version in English or if you dislike both Romanianization or Rumanization, let us find another formula like "was given in Romanian as xxx" or similar".p.s. I was serious, if you have ideas to improve clearly non-Hungarian related Romania articles, I am ready to participate.Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi 09:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was my mistake. I corrected it (DerGelbeMann (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
Its time to revise block
editEditor Iaaasi was blocked indefinitely and it seems that he has remained a main concern of sockpuppet investigations. In Romanian-Hungarian edit relationships, DerGelbeMann proved to be a moderate, consensus-seeking person, so I do not think, whether Iaaasi or not, that he needs to be a target of a block. In Transylvania-related disputes, there are other obvious sockpuppets with agressive editing policies, however, just because they edit and vote from the master's girlfriend's IP adress, can go on without any consequence. Iaaasi once made some questionable edits [7] on his talk page which was treated as hate mongering against Hungarians, but this was grossly misunderstood and over-exaggerated. As a Hungarian working mainly on Transylvania topics I know quite well the few remaining active editors in the topic, and I can warrant that Iaaasi|Umumu|DerGelbemann learned the lesson and its time to unblock him. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not all the Hungarian users think like you(79.117.139.77 (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC))
Indeed there are editors " with agressive editing policies". Those same editors have a clear disruptive behavior and constantly attack those who hold a different opinion than their own. As some Hungarian users focus their attention on neighboring countries instead of expanding the articles in their homeland while "sending" away editors form the same countries, DerGelbeMann, certainly did`t do anything to deserve this block while other users openly express their heavily biased POV [8] and afterward claim neutrality. This can be clearly seen, 2 paragraphs above, that those same editors waste no opporunity in making their personal attacks. Adrian (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
DerGelbeMann (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
may I be unblocked please? I understood my mistakes form my first account and I will not create problems... User:Rokarudi is a Hungarian user and he can confirm that I am not anti-Hungarian: [9]... please give me a new chance...
Decline reason:
You were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Comment: I personally appreciate that this editor keeps trying to come back under his own name by making repeated efforts to convince the community he has learned the lesson. Would it not be easier for him to apply for a new IP adress from the local internet provider and to come back just like that? It has already been establised that this editor is not necessarily a sockpuppet of Bonaparte. Iaaasi/Ummumu was banned for anti-Hungarian language, therefore, I would suggest restoring his editor's rights for a probation period restricted to certain articles eg. Transylvania articles (John Hunyadi excluded) under some kind of supervision. I would undertake to permanently consult with him on disputed Hungarian-Romanian issues. As I am one one of the currently active editors with the most living edits in Transylvania subjects with a potential of Romanian-Hungarian dispute ( for which this editor was banned), and among the few editors in the topic I am not regarded as a anti-Hungarian activist, I think that a probation for this editor with my assistance could be succesful. As this editor was found a sockpuppet of Iaaasi, we have to go back to the original cause of the ban, which had nothing to do with the use of multiple accounts.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
DerGelbeMann (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was accused for anti-Hungarian edits and maybe it is true that i exaggerated sometimes, but it was not because of xenophobic feelings...now i have enough experience to know how to behave on WP... please read the above comment of the Hungarian user Rokarudi
Decline reason:
You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts, an issue which you have failed to address in your unblock request. You will not be unblocked here; you must apply using your original account. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Note to reviewing admin: This account was created on May 17. As is usual with recent Iaaasi socks, multiple accounts (now blocked) were created on that IP within a short time of this one, in a fashion that would give an unambiguous "confirmed" result. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would also note that this new unblock request once again completely ignores the stated reason for the block, which is abuse of multiple accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, the reason of the block was sockpuppetry for sockmaster Iaaasi. Iaaasi, in his turn, had been blocked for anti-Hungarian speech. Am I correct that you mean this sockpuppet account may not be unblocked, if an unblock is requested, this must be done by the master account, in our case by Iaaasi? Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even better, since Iaaasi appears to be the banned User:Bonaparte, it will have to be on that account -- and good luck with that. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, the reason of the block was sockpuppetry for sockmaster Iaaasi. Iaaasi, in his turn, had been blocked for anti-Hungarian speech. Am I correct that you mean this sockpuppet account may not be unblocked, if an unblock is requested, this must be done by the master account, in our case by Iaaasi? Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would also note that this new unblock request once again completely ignores the stated reason for the block, which is abuse of multiple accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
RE: Email
editI see that you are banned, so I won't reply you by e-mail. I see no evidence the IP is a sock. Also, technically, blocked editor is preferred than banned editor, and if I revert myself I'm helping you. I won't reply any upcoming mail from you or any other sock. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Cupa României
editCan you help me to edit more seasons of Cupa României or Liga II ? Thank you.Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)