User talk:Roamataa/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
|
Opera
Nici o problemă. Cu plăcere. Biruitorul 22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Şi mulţumesc frumos pentru sprijinul dvs. la RfA-ul meu. Biruitorul 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Da, sigur. Biruitorul 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't mention it
My pleasure. Thank you for such articles. Dahn 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sărbători fericite!
Bine ai venit la Wikipedia în limba engleza; ai avut nişte contribuţii foarte valoroase pâna acum şi sper să continue în anul 2007! Numai bine ţie şi familiei tale de Crăciun şi de Anul Nou. Biruitorul 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Mulţumesc mult pentru felicitare. Îţi doresc şi eu un Crăciun fericit şi un an nou plin de succes şi bucurie. TSO1D 21:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Hungarian sentiment has Category:Politics of Romania, Category:Politics of Slovakia, Category:Politics of Serbia, and Category:Politics of Vojvodina because most of the article is about current events that largely involve politics between the countries. I changed it to "history" in the Anti-Romanian discrimination article because you said it involves the 1940-1944 period in Northern Transylvania, which isn't really related to the politics of modern-day Hungary.
BTW, I would also support a rename to Anti-Romanian sentiment, but if you want to know the truth, I think all of these "anti-XXX" articles (Russophobia, Anti-Armenianism, Anglophobia, Quebec bashing, etc.) are very unencyclopedic. They just serve the purpose of proving a point of how poor us are prosecuted and tortured by them throughout the history. Khoikhoi 09:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The only paragraph about Romania in the article is about Gheorghe Funar, who his a politician. The section even says, "making anti-Hungarian policies". I'm not really sure why Category:History of Romania is more relevant that Category:Politics of Romania in this case.
- My great-grandparents were from Transylvania as well. I think it's very good that your relatives and friends live so peacefully together—I wish everyone could be like that. I'm sure some Romanians have done bad things, and Hungarians have too (see ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureş for an example). However, I hope that when looking at the bad, we can see how we can improve in the future. Regards, Khoikhoi 11:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Re. Your protection of the Gheorghe Funar article
Hello and thank you for contacting me. Yes, I followed all the normal procedures while protecting this article. Protection does not endorse the current (protected) version of an article, in no way it means that the protected version is the right one and shall remain like that forever. Protection is just a process meant to stop an edit war occurring in an article. Upon Khoikhoi's request I verified that an edit war was in fact occurring and therefore the article was protected. It will not be protected forever. What I suggest now is start a discussion area about the disputed content on its talk page, so that a consensus may be established about the dispute and an edit war will not restart once the article is unprotected. You may also place a request for comment to attract more users into the dispute. I hope this clarifies the situation here. Regards,--Húsönd 13:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
SFD notification
This message is to notify you that a stub template and category that you created ({{Cluj-stub}} and Category:Cluj-Napoca stubs) is up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Licalitatile din Republica Moldova
User talk:Bogdangiusca#Lista localit.C4.83.C5.A3ilor din Republica Moldova :Dc76 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
poza
Salut! nu reusesc sa pun o poza sus in tabel. poate ma ajuti tu.--Heavypiece 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cluj-Napoca&diff=117547690&oldid=117547138 la Cluj-Napoca. --Heavypiece 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Atacuri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hungarian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#New_attack am un nou prieten ungur care ma ataca. --Heavypiece 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Cluj
Hi, sorry for reverting your edits, that wasn't my intention at all. I was trying to revert Heavypiece's edits, because he was a sockpuppet of a banned user (see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits). If you want to, feel free to restore your edits that you believe are non-controversial, but restore your edits individually without doing a full revert on Cluj-Napoca. I deleted the main articles because they were created by Bonaparte's sock as well. Khoikhoi 18:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here you go: User:Roamataa/History of Cluj-Napoca. Although Bonaparte is banned, he can use open proxies, etc. to create many new accounts. I'm positive that they're the same person, I've delt with him for nearly a year now. Khoikhoi 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, all confirmed by CheckUser. And yes, you can go ahead and add the content there. Khoikhoi 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cu plǎcere. It was good working with you on this article -- maybe we can still improve it in the future. Turgidson 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
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 08:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 18 | 30 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 19 | 7 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Are you sure you used the right naming convention when making this edit? Since the events in question occurred in the 1600s, I used the terminology from the time -- surely Cluj was not named Cluj-Napoca then! I looked again at WP:NCGN, and could not find the exact the policy there, maybe you know it better. While at it, why delink Apaţa -- it's a commune listed on Braşov County, it should be coming up at some point. Finally, what is "actual" Braşov County, Romania? Perhaps "today in", or "now in" is meant? Turgidson 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks — I'm not 100% sure, either, I'm still trying to find out what the "right" conventions are. I kind of doubt it's all set in stone — one still needs to use case-by-case judgment in some situations -- but it would be good to have clear and uniform standards. In the specific case of Cluj (sorry, that's how I think of that city — I still can't bring myself to call it Cluj-Napoca in colloquial speech, only when being formal about it), my tendency is to call the city by its official name at the time an event mentioned in a given article occurred. What do you think, is that a reasonable standard? And, would that be codified by a specific WP guideline or policy? Turgidson 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 20 | 14 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Your campagin
You launched a campaign against bilingual infoboxes in Romania deleting Hungarian names in about a dozen villages. Bilingual infoboxes were accepted by Romanian users with a strong consesus until now and there was no problem with them in the past half year. The present situation is in line with the Romanian laws which allow the official usage of minority language place names with a 20 % limit. So you are deleting official data from the infoboxes which is on the verge of vandalism. Please stop this campaign against Hungarian (and Ukrainian) names. They do not compromise the territorial integrity of Romania and don't mean any irredentist claim against the country. Their usage is a basic human right of the people who are living there and they are Romanian citizens as you. Zello 01:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Zello 100%. These bilingual infoboxes have been here for ages, and it is very unnerving that you have come here, flaunted consensus, and tampered with the infobox (including the template) in such a way. If you really believe that infoboxes should not be bilingual, then please raise a discussion on this topic anywhere, be it at the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, at the talk page of the template, or at the talk page of one of the articles in question. But please don't try to get the Hungarian names out of the infoboxes through tactics such as adding "Commune" to the templates so we get constructions like "Szek Commune". Ronline ✉ 01:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The point is exactly about the title of the infobox, not about the fact that they contain non-Romanian names in small italic script. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you've implemented these small italic alternative names in order to weaken the case for including non-Romanian titles. The communes in question are officially-bilingual, meaning that they use Romanian and Hungarian both as working languages in public administration, justice, education and signage. The convention for infoboxes at Wikipedia is that the name is displayed in all officially-recognised languages of a locality. Additionally, if you read Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc, you will see that there is broad consensus from both Romanian and Hungarian editors for including these names in the infobox title. In articles such as Oradea, Satu Mare and Miercurea-Ciuc, dual infobox titles have been implemented for a very long time. The reason I deleted the word "Commune" is because I feel it is misplaced there, for two reasons. Firstly, because it can only be used when there is one title, or otherwise we get constructions like "Sic - Linebreak - Szek Commune", which are very confusing for the reader. Secondly, because the status of a locality should not be indicated in its infobox title (in English), but rather in another place in the infobox, such as "Type: Commune". A compromise solution would be to write the full official name for each commune: Comuna Sic, Comuna Călăraşi, and this should be done not through the global template but rather individually for each article. An example of this implementation is at Mühlbach, Italy. Ronline ✉ 06:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the Comuna Călăraşi / Harasztos Kommuna approach would be the best, and actually more informative than the status quo. There is no codified policy for infoboxes, but common precedent has established that the infoboxes use official local-language names rather than common English names. The article title should be located at the most common English name, but the infobox title should contain the name in the official languages of a locality or place, not the English name. For example, see Republic of Macedonia, which first contains the name in the two official languages of the country, with the English name listed last in italics. See also Bautzen, or Wales or Aberdeen or Dunedin (all of which are bilingual). At other Wikipedias, there are different conventions. For example, the Hungarian Wikipedia infoboxes actually contain only the Hungarian name as the infobox title. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just one more thing: would a construction like "Egeres kommuna" be correct? Since I don't know Hungarian, does the "Egeres" change in any way when you add "kommuna"? I know that, in Finnish, the ending changes, so that "Helsinki" becomes "Helsingin kaupunki". Ronline ✉ 08:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In Hungarian the endings of words don't change like that so Egeres kommuna is a correct version. Zello 12:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion
Hi. I see that you also do not agree with POV infoboxes that some users here want to push. Perhaps you can use my proposal how one bilingual infobox could look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bač%2C_Serbia#proposal_by_PANONIAN It is certainly more NPOV than current infoboxes used in Romania-related articles. PANONIAN 09:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I do not like to use email much, so you can contact me on my Wikipedia talk page. I only made a suggestion to you that you can use more NPOV infobox for Romania-related pages, and if you want to discuss more about this infobox or about naming policies, we can do this on these talk pages as well. PANONIAN 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Municipalities and Towns of Harghita County
Oh, those names aren't even in the template anymore :) I still think that template should also contain the Hungarian names, since most of those localities are majority-Hungarian and the Hungarian language is also officially-recognised in those areas. I don't feel particularly strongly about that, however, so I won't be reverting. Ronline ✉ 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)