Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:Dpotop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to the Romanian history business: User talk:Dpotop/Romanian history business.

User:Dpotop/Archive1

If you have some time, please help preserve info in this article, and protect it from vandalism. :Dc76 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted!

[edit]

This got deleted, unfortunately. Any idea what its source was or what tag we could put to make it remain? I liked that picture. Biruitorul 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. While you try and find out, let me just say it might be safer on en.wiki rather than on Commons, with a fair-use tag. In any case, I do hope it comes back - maybe Bogdan knows more details. Biruitorul 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For our picture, it's [1] and [2]. Biruitorul 18:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Have you seen this? What exactly should I make? It's very strange and very stressful.--Tones benefit 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, don't edit that article for a few days, observe other people edits there, introduce modification piece by pieca and comment consistently each of them - some will be accepted, some - not, some - will need discussion. That's a general principle of behavior in a an article that you are new.:Dc76 18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but today I'm not the only one who complained. Another editor asked him on his page to stop intimidating him.--Tones benefit 18:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a democracy, and it is not like in the court room. (no oppinion if it should be) The one who shows more intelligence in editting wins. If you really want to catch him, you have to show that you are always nice and correct, and he is always wrong. That is very hard, especially b/c of "always". Avoid conflict. "Frontal attack" is the most stupid way of fighting a battle. Read military strategy. :-) :Dc76 19:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are rules here on wikipedia (BTW, there are/were states of law that are not democracies). Dpotop 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are right, but I suggest him to prepare for the worse and hope for the best. The point is, in real life, I can ask a court to rule if I fill my right are violated. Here, there is no court, there is no a priori rule of law, only in some instances. Often, you have to defend yourself. It is more like in the middle ages.:Dc76 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely true. This is why I chose to support the guy, in the absence of sufficient proof of his guilt. But of course, you are right when saying he should behave. Dpotop 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if you built a reputation of a civilized user, there is absolutely nothing some with bad intentions can do to you. It's a free world, after all. It is important for Tones benefit to learn these dangers and possibilities. The fact that he gets rv on a few articles is of no importance imo, they can be reviseted later when he has more experience.  :Dc76 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I prove he's wrong when he is? How can I deal the situation when he deletes sourced information and he tells me if I revert to my version I will be blocked? I like Moldova but it seems to be hard to edit about it. Anyway, I will avoid him as much as possible. I created a page of slurs (they are true) just because he was frontal attacked me also.--Tones benefit 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever call anyone names or attack personally. (you can get very badly blocked for that) His or her person is irrelevant. Only refer to the edits the user makes. In my opinion (IMO), your aim should not be to prove one is wrong and get him banned, but to edit articles you are interested in. Again, the one who puts the other chin, wins. B/c everyone sees who and how reacts. It is all on public record - anyone can see.:Dc76 19:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you are talking to Tones benefit. Dpotop 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am sorry to "hijack" your page. :Dc76 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Romanian Communist Party and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please take the time to review the policy carefully. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last post to the 3RR page, by all means explain here why you feel the first edit wasn't a revert. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I was actually proposing a middle way, more precise than what Anonimu rejected. That was not a revert, but constructive editing. Dpotop 13:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that appears to be the case. Note the part "(as part of the BPD coalition)" in [3]; this does not appear in the supposed 'reverted to' version. Consequently, there are only 3 true reverts by Dpotop. Digwuren 13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, insist that this be solved. Forcing blocks on other editors for own edit waring (the acitons of User:Anonimu) is not a thing that can be taken lightly. User:Slim Virgin has not responded yet. Could you, please, let me know if he/she does not in the near future. His/her reticence in answering are perfectly understandable, but imho the 3RR block must be cleared from your log, and at least a serious warning must be issued to Anonimu. Otherwise, it sets a serious precedent.:Dc76 10:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for your support, to Dc76, Digwuren, and I would also cite Turgidson which took position against Anonimu's vandalism on Talk:Romanian Communist Party.
Second, (to Dc76), I'm still blocked. Funny enough, just after the first block by SlimVirgin I still had the right to reply on the 3RR page. This is how I managed to place my short reply there, but then I was fully blocked by SlimVirgin (is this normal?). What can I say: I have already fought against vandals supported by admins, and I can tell you it's difficult. The only thing we can do is to report an incident on WP:ANI. There are several arguments here:
  1. Edit warring by Anonimu against most others, and against sources. Refusal to accept compromise (NPOV).
  2. The fact that I had only 3 reverts, not 4.
  3. The behavior of SlimVirgin, which seems weird.
But I don't have time to do this alone (the real life takes its share...). Dpotop 10:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's still assume good faith from Slim Virgin. Maybe he/she did not have time to reply yet. I will post a message right away at his/her page. Your number of rv is irrelevant here, because you reverted obvious POV-pushing, and only other editor on that page would have done the same. It is the abuse of regulations by Anonimu to push POV against everyone and block editors trying to prevent his vandalism. :Dc76 10:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You interrupted my second edit. :) I continue on Slim Virgin:
  1. The behavior of SlimVirgin, which seems weird. He refused to review my innocence claim, and moreover blocked me from asking questions on the 3RR page. Finally, he discarded your comments (but then, all other admins did). This is why I suggested WP:ANI.
What can I say, the more I understand wikipedia editing, the less I feel like participating in it. Mainly because all the organized instances do not actually function as they are supposed to. The whole functions very well "on average", but if you try to clarify aspects at the limits you get all the time in edit conflicts that the administrators do not understand. There's also the problem related to "heavy editors" that can impose pretty much whatever they want. Of course, I cannot invest 12hours/day in wikipedia like Dahn does systematically. And again, this "power editor" problem is related to the fact that existing instances do not function. Take a look at the block log of Dahn to see how this functions. Dpotop 10:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot: Wikipedia is not interesting to me if I cannot go into the details and limit cases. For the remaining cases, you always have a good encyclopedia. Dpotop 10:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about edit conflict. According tothis, Slim Virgin seems to be in the California time zone. Now, it is 4 am there. Let's wait 6-8 more hours. I am pritty sure SlimVirgin will correct his/her error. I do not see any sign that he/she targetted you in any way. The way Anonimu tricked him/her is on record. Now, if SlimVirgin would not clear your block log and warn Anonimu, that would be a totally different issue. But the chance of that happening is very small, because a civilized user/admin will never want his/her reputation blackened by such a stupid incident. IMO, right now the incident is absolutely minor and IMHO you should forget about it once corrected. (I mean not to forget Anonimu's abuses, which are very serious, but the blocking incident.) Of course, there is the potential of the incident blowing up big time if the error is not corrected. But as I said, that is not probable, IMHO.
Sorry, I don't know how to look at block logs. All I see is this. I think we should separate between details and limit cases of WP articles and details and limit cases of WP polices and their enforcement. The latter has lots/tonns of problems. The former is only dependent on the availability of more interested and good faith editors, which will only rise with time. I disagree with Dahn on some of his edits, and perhaps on some political oppinions, but I do not see anything really mean from his side. So far I was able to attribute all his shorcomings to his not very friendly character. Yes, he has often outright dismissed other oppinions and edits, and never was the person to propose a compromise in a dispute, always considered that below his dignity. But these are character shortcomings, not intentionally doing bad. IMHO. Let me put it this way: if he was a girl, I'd never even consider dating her even if she looks like Angelina Jolie. But it doesn't mean that I cannot be coworker with such a person. :Dc76 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the block logs, I have a solution that is easy to remember: Take a look at the 3RR report of Anonimu. Then, click next to my name on "Block log". Finally, change the address in your web browser by replacing Dpotop with Dahn. :) Dpotop 11:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns wikipedia, you are absolutely right in saying that the rules are OK by themselves. The problem is that they don't function in those corner cases I was talking about. And here comes the Dahn example: I see no problem regarding him, but there is no way I can compel him to comply with the rules as other do, because the wikipedia mechanisms that should do this do not work. Dpotop 11:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, you mean some admins would give Dahn lesser blocks or cancel them after a few hours b/c Dahn edits articles appearing on DYK. Maybe one solution would be to hold to higher standard users that often edit articles featured on the main page, e.g. to make a committee of 3-4 admins that would only revue issues involving this group. And I mean to select this committe democratically and limit terms on it to 3 months, with no repeating terms ever possible. Aim: an edit war involving an edittor which currently contributes to the main page can have negative effect on the main page. Keeping cool when editting articles available on the main page is a must. Hence it would make sense to ask some editors: either you contribute to the main page, or take a brake from contributing to the main page and engage in edit warring. For example: "you can not contribute to the main page if in the last 360 hours you have engaged in any edit warring". The commette's aim would be to uphold this. Of course, this is just my stupid idea.
PS {{user6|username}}:Dc76 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's rules are primarily developed by Americans, and suffer from a heavy US-ideology bias. As long as most contributors are of the same cultural space, it's no big deal — but it leaves them wide open for abuse by somebody believing into the Soviet notion of positive propaganda. It's not as much a matter of "corner cases" as of the expectations of users differing from what the actual users are and do. Digwuren 02:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dpotop, I have not heard back from SlimVirgin (the admin who blocked you). If I were you, I'd insist the block-log to be cleared. She does not have to take any action against Anonimu, b/c Anonimu will definitevely do something like that again. In the long history of his disruptions, one more or one less are really of no importrance. But she can (and has moral obligation to) clear your name. :Dc76 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you here.:Dc76\talk 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians of Serbia--152.3.200.168 14:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

Hi Dpotop, this is regarding this AfD. I was astonished by your vote as I do think the article is totally and utterly unsalvageable, whether or not it is a precise translation of that on ro.wiki. To make things clear: I don't want to hide the wrongful acts Hungarians committed while the Second Vienna Award was in effect (or at any other time) and I believe none of the established Hungarian editors want to do so; indeed I would revert anyone who tries to remove sourced and unbiased accounts of such events. However, this article has no chance of becoming either, unless you replace it completely, title and content – in which case it is much easier to remove it entirely (thus avoiding having to explain sentence by sentence why it is unacceptable) and expand the already existing and much more correct stubs. Regards, KissL 16:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been civil towards you, this ad hominem comment is as unexpected as it is unwelcome. It is clear enough to me that Dahn and yourself dislike each other, but that doesn't help me understand what you think I did "just as wrong as Dahn did". Regarding the other claims:

  • I am not a seer so that I might know the outcome of an AfD in advance (nor do I think I am one).
  • I did not notify any one "picked" editor but left a note on the Eastern Europe noticeboard, and there only. If you believe I had a reason to think that people watching that page had a tendency of sharing my preference regarding the article more than the average interested editor, I would like to know your reasons for believing so. In return, I am willing to explain at any time why I think that those watching the Romanian Wikipedians' noticeboard may have a tendency of sharing your preference regarding that article more than the average interested editor. :)

Please refrain from such comments in the future. Regards, KissL 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Treaty of Trianon, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop removing referenced material from the article without serious discussion on the article's talk page, because that is considered vandalism. Squash Racket 09:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roma emigrating to Romania from Serbia

[edit]

I found another source on this discussion. Cheers, --Olahus 19:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Moldova

[edit]

Yes, I am well aware, but thank you for the reminder. See here for a proposed strategy. Biruitorul 00:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then bring it up to the talk page. ;) Also do you suggest to then use the same standard for Montenegro article? --PaxEquilibrium 12:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salut

[edit]

Thanks for the welcome, I'm glad to talk to you again. TSO1D 15:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so?

[edit]

can I see a link with what are you having problems with?Nergaal (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

say thanks to anonimu for showing me which link was that.Nergaal (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

[edit]

Quite right, and thanks for the note. I posted a reply there. Biruitorul (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in an article I have just created, List of Senior Securitate Officers (because I could not feet right away the info into Securitate). It might or it might not make sense to have a separate article. If you are interested, feel welcome to edit it/them., and to use these pictures: Securitate 1 Securitate 2 Securitate 3 Securitate 4 100px|Teohari Georgescu Alexandru Draghici Alexandru Nicolschi, or any of the pictures on my user page (in fact I put them exactly so that people can use them in different articles). I'm not claiming they are very good. But they are better than nothing. :Dc76\talk 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crăciun

[edit]

Un Crăciun şi un An Nou fericit!--MariusM (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas

[edit]

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O A M A T A A | msg  18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature test

[edit]

Dpotop (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask your opinion about this, pls? :Dc76\talk 19:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Try to keep cool no matter what, this is not the first, nor the last of a kind. I would not, though, attribute it to just Russians, since there are many honest and good natured ones, even here at wikipedia. I wouldn't also attribute it to average Russian, since they don't care about issues like Moldova more than we care about, say issues like Moscow. It is a small group of pro-Soviet die-hards, many of them also xenophobic, that is and will always be the problem. There are many of those frustrated with their real state of affairs. Notice that the biggest problems never come from Russians from Russia, but from some of the Russophones from Ukraine, Belorussia, etc. ... because they feel frustration with the world around. Just like many of the early Romanian communist party activists. A sense of desinheritedness, and a total reluctance to integrate, if not even hate of their host countries. It is just a social phenomenon... :Dc76\talk 11:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2008 ? :Dc76\talk 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hutulii din bucovina si maramures

[edit]

salutare. m-ai intrebat cum de sunt hutul si totusi romîn in documente. pai în romînia traiesc aproximativ 70 000 de ucraineni potrivit ultimului recensamînt, si mult mai multi in realitate (majoritatea nu se mai declara ucraineni, mai ales pt ca isi iau sotii / soti romîni ori de alte etnii), iar dintre acestia, majoritatea celor din judetele suceava si maramures sunt hutuli.

de ex. in liceu aveam alti 3 hutuli in clasa, doua fete si un baiat. toti trei vorbeau limba ucraineana (ma rog, dialectul hutul), insa din clasa doar eu eram declarat ucrainean la recensamînt

--Hultanu (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Edict of Turda

[edit]

You recently added a POV claim to Edict of Turda. You have called the article propaganda, but have not indicated what you object to. Please be more specific. Elphion (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article significantly. Could you review it for neutrality? Thanks. Elphion (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An immortal classic...

[edit]

...of the early 1990s throughout the former USSR! It is an instruction for all Russian "guests": Suitcase, train station, Russia!

I hear that, during that time, if you ask someone in the Baltic countries for directions in Russian (to anywhere) they'd politely and accurately describe the way to the nearest train station. :-) --Illythr (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help you there - I'm not much into newspapers. All I can say is that such a statistic certainly exists, but I have no idea where to find it... --Illythr (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]


Milhist Coordinator election
Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Circassian War

Xasha

[edit]

Is Xasha Moldopudo?90 1 AQ (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, man, calm down. This really isn't worth the nerve tissue you waste there. Going emotional won't help any. I intend to talk to him so that he can outline his position more clearly. Then it can be constructively criticized, if need be. --Illythr (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when the matter settles down a little - it seems these wars regularly flare up, which is unfortunate. By the way, your question inadvertently led to this, so perhaps you could weigh in on the matter. Biruitorul (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions

[edit]

Notice of editing restrictions

[edit]

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Accordingly, you are hereby restricted to one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles. Any incivility on the talk page, and you will be banned from there, and the article, for a period of two days. If you wish to appeal this, please do so before other admins or the Arbitration Committee, rather than copy&paste comments across multiple pages (please exercise restraint on this front, especially). Thanks. El_C 11:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think Macedonia is a ways southwest from the actual place... --Illythr (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AC was the one who chose to use the above template, please direct any such concerns to them. El_C 11:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather confusing, since this user never made any contributions to Macedonia (at least not within a year's notice). And Moldova (which I understand is the cause) is not part of the Balkans either. --Illythr (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean now. I seem to have copied the wrong template by accident. All fixed now. Thanks for the pointer. El_C 12:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's up and running, please join! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join the new Moldovan Wines project !

[edit]

Hello, probably you will be interested in development of the Moldovan Wine articles. If yes, I am pleased to invite you to join it on the Project:MoldovanWines project page. Best regards, --serhio talk 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion in this article's talk page, I made a proposal [4] and gave its rationale [5]. You are receiving this standard message because during the last 12 months you have editted either this article or its talk page, or both. Dc76\talk 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weber

[edit]

Nice to see you around here. Since I know you're a fan of Romanian civil society, I'm sure you'll enjoy this article! ;) - Biruitorul Talk 06:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing specific I know about her, just one of those annoying civil society "types". Also, the biography is written by her press officer. - Biruitorul Talk 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just noticed that stuff at flux.md . Roşca left the reservation some time ago, but this was striking even from him. He was pretty promising ca. 1989-91, but clearly his time is long past, and he probably knows it. (Well, almost certainly, given his dismal electoral results.) - Biruitorul Talk 20:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

[edit]

Bună! I've been working to set up the WikiProject Dacia to organize better the articles about Dacia and improve their quality. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Maybe you find it interesting and wish to join. Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Romania

[edit]
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]