User talk:AdrianTM/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Timisoara 2 P.S. 3 Moldova 4 Talk:Moldova 5 Linux 6 Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux 7 Talk:Linux 8 Your contributions to mainstream Linux articles 9 About the Hungarian propaganda 10 Communist Romania 11 IceWeasel disambiguation 12 List of LiveDistros 13 From Gligan 14 Romania 15 hi 16 Who split from whom? 17 American spelling 18 Troll-feeding 19 Location Maps 20 Let's work together for a better atmosphere 21 Watch it. 22 Civility 23 Minor corrections

[edit] Timisoara

Well, lets see, the sources I have about population of Timisoara say this: during the medieval Hungarian rule, the majority in the city were Hungarians, during Ottoman rule the majority were Turks, in the beginning of the Habsburg rule, majority were Serbs, and later the majority were Germans. So, very interesting change of population in different time periods. I suppose that you are mostly interested in ethnic Romanians which lived in the city, so according to my data, in 1720 the largest ethnic group in Timisoara were Serbs, the second largest Romanians and the third largest Jews (there were no Hungarians and Germans in the city in that time). That is all I can tell you, maybe you should find more in other sources. Most of this what I told you is from this book: Dr Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjige 1-3, Novi Sad, 1990. Some data you can find here too: http://www.talmamedia.com/ PANONIAN (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to balance the slanted information over there, I'm not necessarily interested in Romanian population of Timisoara (I think Romanian population in the city was small in those times while it was still the majority in Banat since Romanians were mostly peasants) Interesting info anyway. AdrianTM 16:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can help you little more with this. Regarding 1910 census, Timisoara in that time was capital of Temes county. Although, the largest ethnic group in the city were Germans, Romanians were largest group in the county. Maybe you can add this to Timisoara article if helps to make it more NPOV. Just see Temes article for details about county population. PANONIAN (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P.S.

What part of Romania are you from? —Khoikhoi 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being interested in me, don't take it personally, but I don't publish personal info on the net as a rule (even if it's trivial info). AdrianTM 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I understand. —Khoikhoi 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You know you are right: The terms of Romanian and Moldovan are not exclusive. --Brasoveanul 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moldova

You have to list it on WP:RPP or ask another admin to unprotect it. Simply removing the tag will just mislead people. —Khoikhoi 17:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it's not like you can't edit it, it's because of Bonaparte. —Khoikhoi 17:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know how it works. How long will it stay protected? -- AdrianTM 17:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, as I said, you're welcome to list it on WP:RPP and we can reprotect it if things get bad. —Khoikhoi 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, added the page there. -- AdrianTM 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Moldova

Perhaps I was misled by your wording, but what you wrote there gave me the impression that you believe that the Soviet occupation of Moldova lasted until its very independence of 1991 and that the Soviet rule was viewed as oppression by the majority of the populace thoughout that entire period. With that being so, however, the desicive Communist victory in the election of 2001 appears rather... inexplicable?

I think there's a clear difference between the Communist regime and the (ex)Communist parties after the Communism lost its teeth in Europe in 1989-1991. Nowadays Communist parties are part of the democratic game and they play by (sort of) democratic rules (of course trying to bend them in ways favorable to them). I don't believe in labels, I believe in facts, if a Communist party follow the law than it's OK by me, even if I would never vote for it because I don't believe in that kind of bullshit. -- AdrianTM 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As do I. Certainly, these "Communists" have practically nothing in common with the "Red Menace" of old. Even when they were all so "Red" and pro-Russian back in 2001. However, many (older) people who voted for them, voted for the "good old times" the Communists promised. Without the bad parts, of course. I couldn't believe they'd actually win, but when they did, I thought, oh well, maybe they'll at least solve the conflict with Transnistria, both being sort of Communist. But I guess they turned out to be incompatible sorts of Communists, with extensive corruption being the only common trace in them... Bah. Anyhow, my point is, if so many people did vote for the Communist with all their Hammer and Sickle symbolic and pro Soviet sentiments, then these people could not have viewed them as evil oppressors during the entire Soviet era. --Illythr 16:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the vote in 2001 as a referendum about Soviet occupation. Besides many people that considered that an occupation fled to Romania, were deported and others were killed. The rest were indoctrinated and educated to love the Soviet Union. Some people that voted the communists voted out of frustration because they loved the pensions they had before, not because they loved the occupation, besides there's a difference between voting for "your" communists and voting for Soviet communists. -- AdrianTM 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the pursuing of the independence from Soviet Union - I adhere to the view that the real force behind it was several power-hungry... persons capitalising on the growing national "self-expression" and the weakened state of the central controlling entity. This view is backed by the fact that Moldova refused to unite with Romania, as was expected during the breakup. Aside from that, Snegur and Luchinschi are currenly not exactly the poorest people in Moldova, even though they led the country to the current sad state it is in. The quotes "Better rule in hell that serve in Heaven" and "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." sum up this view quite succintly. Cheers, Illythr 00:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what is happening in Transnistria too, there are always power-hungry people that want to rule their puny corner of the world. -- AdrianTM 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly true, although Smirnov had and easier time at that. --Illythr 16:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux

Hi. Can you please explain this reversion in more detail at talk:Linux?

To me that note is very distracting and not very helpful. People looking for GNU only will not type GNU/Linux, and the relationship between GNU and Linux is explained at the correct place in the article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK putting "X is redirected here" blurbs atop articles when 'X' is a very common name for the subject of the article is standard practice. Saying where the GNU article is serves as an explanation so people don't have to say "Okay...and wtf is GNU?" should they be that completely ignorant. Also, I'm pretty sure the "GNU/Linux" proponents would eat you alive and yet another war on this matter would be spawned. ¦ Reisio 05:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You are one step from breaking Three-revert rule, please stop the revert war. As I explained in Linux page people that want to look for GNU they don't type "Linux" or even "GNU/Linux" in the search field they type directly "GNU", that dab link was there only to promote a POV and that against the NPOV principle of Wikipedia -- AdrianTM 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of 3RR. :p As for 'that dab' being POV, that's your POV. :p ¦ Reisio 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux

In case you're interested... Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Linux

This is a message for Resio and AdrianTM. I think you should stop reverting talk:linux. That's becoming silly a bit, a revert war on the talk page. Resio, if you want to be the last man standing, that's fine. I think we should all drop that and move on. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Adrian, are you Romanian? It appears to be so, from you contributions. If so, si eu sunt Roman (cred ca nu ti-ai dat seama dupa nume). I-mi pare biine. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions to mainstream Linux articles

Thanks for trying to maintain a high standard of writing in your edits. It's good to know that not everyone sees endless nitpickery to be more important than making articles readable. Keep up the good work :) Chris Cunningham 09:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Hungarian propaganda

Hi Adrian! I don't want to war. What is your problems with my edits? Your edits seem to be Nationalistic bias ("favoring the interests or views of a particular nation"). It can be read in the NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

You can not state that Romania is a paradise of the ethnical minorities! By, Kuruc, 13 Aug 2006 12:52 (CEST)

Actually it's a model in Europe of tollerance! If you don't agree that's your problem, what about Hungary where minorities don't have even their own deputy in parliament? --85.186.50.73 14:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim such thing. However let me point to something in the quote you provided: "All significant published points of view are presented", so this doesn't mean any Hungarian pamphlet about the issue. Moreover, a discussion if that 20% is sufficient or not is a POV and irrelevant and doesn't have a place in Romania article. Also, please don't use loaded expressions such as "the most brutal suppression" that might mean anything, use specific facts (e.g. x number of Hungarians were killed or x number of Hungarians were forced to leave, etc) but there's a history of Romania page for that kind of info, the main page is just for general information, adding that you'll start a unnecessary piss contest (in which, by the way, I don't see how Hungarians hope to look better) anyway the Romanian article is not meant to be a presentation of Hungarian propaganda talking points.

Also, please discuss these issues in the talk page of the article not in my personal page, this is not a personal issue. -- AdrianTM 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

<attempted-humor>You wrote recently "I was not aware that Wikipedia is a pissing contest between Hungarians and Romanians." You must not be paying much attention. (Actually, large portions of Wikipedia are not a pissing contest between Hungarians and Romanians: vast tracts are a pissing contest between Jews and Serbs, and several select neighborhoods host a pissing contest between Catalans and Spaniards. And then there are those of us who are trying to mop up the piss and write an encyclopedia.)</attempted-humor> - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communist Romania

Are you sure that the source ou put mentions 200,000 deaths for the period.. strange thing, but Cartea alba a securitatii (vol. 2) mention about 61,000 imprisoned person for the peak of repression (1948-1953: the time of the danube-black sea canal, baragan camps, pitesti experiment, the anihilation of most anti-communist resistance in the mountains etc). Dej mentioned 80,000 peasants imprisoned for aprox the same period (Ceausescu, trying to defame the leaders of the period of sovietic control, claimed 89,000). Anyway, most sources put the number of imprisoned at 91,000 for the period 1950-1968. Even considering this is only half the real number, the figure of 200,000 deads claimed in the article is unbelievably high. Anonimu 22:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the reference to where it seemed more appropriate. For numbers I agree we need specific quotation and precise reference (page, paragraph). Thanks for pointing that out. -- AdrianTM 23:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IceWeasel disambiguation

Hi, it was there because in this article, the history of IceWeasel section was getting confused with the cartoon - please see talk page. Feel free to put it back in, I thought it was useful for this article, especially as IceWeasel is new and everyone will be like - where's that from? Widefox 02:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of LiveDistros

Hi Adrian. Remember me? ;) First, I'm pleasantly surprised by the work I've seen from you in the last monthes. Thank you.

Now, I'm dissatisfied by your merge of List of Live CDs to LiveDistro. For one thing, the list is really long and should be split. Would you mind taking the old page and moving it to List of LiveDistros, or should I go do that myself?--Chealer 06:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but the problem was that the list was duplicated, there was a List of LiveCD and a list in Live Distro (the list in Live Distro was not much smaller). I could not simply move the list from Live Distro to the "List of LiveCD" because I was not sure if everything was a "LiveCD" there are also "LiveDVDs" and while I think the differentiation is pretty braindead I couldn't simply ignore the difference between LiveDVDs and LiveCDs. Anyway, my main concern was to get rid of duplication, now, if somebody wants to categorize that or to move it to a "List of LiveDistros" it's fine by me, just make sure there's no distro left on the LiveDistro page because people will start to add distros over there instead of "list of LiveDistros" -- AdrianTM 13:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Done (wuah, hope I didn't break too much!)--Chealer 11:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I remember you trolling MEPIS page ;-) -- AdrianTM 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Gligan

I do not know whether I talk to you, AdrianTM (don't know how) but as far as changing data in romania is concerned, if you multiply the GDP per capita of romania by its population the result is exactly what i have written (8 785*21 680 000=....). May I ask you about your opinion of Bulgaria?

That's because one item (GDP_PPP_per_capita) is from 2005 and the other one is the GDP projected for 2006, you can't use them in same formula.

Bulgaria article? Bulgaria as a country? I don't have opinions about countries, and I've been only once 3-4 days in Bulgaria so I can't say I know it. I like mountains so that's a plus for Bulgaria, I don't necessarily like poor countries so that's a minus... that's just about as much I can tell about Bulgaria. I also know that Bulgarian border control officers are even more corupt than the Romanian ones and that's a performance in itself (they even learned how to ask for bribe in Romanian -- which of course shows that there are two parts to the transaction, but nevertheless... leaves a bad impression) -- AdrianTM 18:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as the border control officers are concerned, when my father passed through Romania two years ago, he said that they did not know english (what to tell about Bulgarian) and they asked for a bribe. All my friends who go to Romania (or serbia) always complain about this (except for the last time). There are serious measures taken here which strongly reduced corruption along our borders. I guess you have visited Bulgaria more than 2-3 years ago:)

And one more thing (i hope you will not get insulted)- what do you think about the romanian participance in the Second Balkan War??? It was not an honourable act to invade a country which desperately fights for national unity against the traitors (serbs and greeks), was it?--Gligan 10:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wars are seldom honourable. I don't know much about Balkan Wars, but it seems to me like an effective way to fight a war by attacking when the other country is less prepared to defend. Honourable? Again, what's so honourable about killing other people in order to promote your interests? -- AdrianTM 12:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria did not fight these wars to seize lands or to enlarge itself as much as possible. The wars were for national unity- the whole Bulgarian people to live in its country. We tried all ways to prevent regaining our lands with war, but it was inevitable. After the First Balkan War, our ....... allies tried to grab the Bulgarian lands in Macedonia and Thrace, and in my opinion it was honourable to defend them against all our neighbours. As you do not know much of the Balkan Wars, i suppose you will be surprised to learn that we did not lose a single battle except for one near Instambul. We defeated the armies of turkey, serbia and greece, and if we were to have 100 000 more soldiers the romanians would also have been defeated. But... life is like this- nasty and injust.

I hope that romania will never act like this again. Ah, yes. The romanian journalists. I have heard that there is a press campaign in your country against our nuclear power plants. I do not know why Cherna Voda is safer than Kozloduy or Belene. In fact i doubt it. Why don't you help us to build Belene NPP instead of we help you??? This campaign in romania does not seem to me an example of good relation between neighbours.--Gligan 14:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not very interested in Bulgaria and Bulgarian issues. I'm also not responsible for Romanian journalists opinions and I'm not nuclear safety inspector. --AdrianTM 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but Adrian, why do you think Bulgaria's a poor country? It may well not be the economic paradise on Earth, but it certainly isn't worse than Romania. The HDI and the GDP (PPP) per capita clearly show that Bulgaria has a non-negligible advantage, in fact, so such remarks are inappropriate to say the least. Before demonstrating overly high national confidence at least check your facts.

I didn't say it was worse than Romania, in my opinion both Romanian and Bulgaria are pretty poor countries. But I guess it depends how you define "poor" since this is a personal opinion I think have a right to define "poor" as I want. Also, being poor isn't necessarily bad (Jesus loved poor people for example) and it also provides opportunities for new business, it's again a personal preference: some people don't mind living in poor countries, other people like to live in more developed countries, some people don't have a choice... -- AdrianTM 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No offence, it's just that I'm tired of hearing how bad Bulgaria is by Romanians and the contrary. We should be helping each other to make up for what we lack compared to other countries. I mean, if both countries are well off that won't be harmful to either, on the contrary.

Where did I say anything bad about Bulgaria? I said that's poor, but see my comment above. I never edited Bulgaria article, Gligan asked me my opinion about Bulgaria, so even if I had a bad opinion I think I would had the right to say it especially if I was asked about it. But again, I don't have particular opinions about countries in general and none in particular about Bulgaria, country that I don't know much about (that I've been there for 3 or so days doesn't qualify as "knowing" especially that I don't know the language) The question in my opinion is just like if I'd ask you: "What's your opinion about Nepal?" or "What's your opinion about Portugal" Huh?! That's pretty strange thing to ask, isn't it?-- AdrianTM 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the wars, I really think we should leave these issues in the past. It's silly to discuss events one century old as if they're of the utmost importance today, when in fact it doesn't actually matter who attacked who and why. Todor→Bozhinov 15:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What can be more silly that asking a random guy on the internet what are his opinions about Bulgaria and about a war that took place one century ago? -- AdrianTM 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an opinion even of Nepal, Guinea or Bolivia, this is why i usually ask people's opinion of my state. Adrian, it is good to write what you think even if it is not what people want to read or hear. In fact the bad thinks should be sometimes emphasized in order to think about them.

I strongly recommend you to visit the Rhodopi mountains. They are really unique:)--Gligan 19:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romania

Hello,

I've just read the current version of the Romania article, and I have to congratulate them for the history part. I contributed some time ago, but the discussion was still tensed (most notably on recent history). I see that now it's more concise and NPOV. If it lasts more than a week, I think you and the other editors deserve a barnstar. :)

Dpotop 12:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

this is blatent discrimination. I never ruined albanias page. --Coaljoal 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Who did this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=90929547&oldid=90850798? -- AdrianTM 17:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who split from whom?

Concerning whether the Roman Catholic Church separated from the Orthodox; at the time of separation there were hundreds of bishops scattered throughout the world. There were 5 major patriarchates, Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. One side changed, one didn’t. No action was taken by the Orthodox, they remained as they always were, without change. Rome changed. They made the move, Orthodoxy did nothing. Isn’t it more correct to say that one Roman bishop and a few followers broke away from the vastly larger body of hundreds of bishops than to accuse the body that didn’t change?--Phiddipus 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American spelling

Hi Adrian! Regarding your comment that you "think American English is the standard on Wikipedia", I thought you might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Basically, there is no standard, so unless it is clear which variety to use (for example the article on Sydney should be in Australian English), you should just use the same one as the previous contributors of that article. The aim is consistency throughout each article, not throughout the encyclopaedia. Pruneau^talk 17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll-feeding

Please stop replying to the idiots on Talk:Linux. It's only encouraging them. All that needs to be said has been said (there's no authority to name the OS, so there's no "most accurate" term) has been said. I'm tired of the whole talk page being nothing but a podium for the same four or five cultists. Chris Cunningham 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

--

No, seriously, please. I didn't write the position statement so you could be trolled my mms in yet another thread. This isn't accomplishing anything. Chris Cunningham 15:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location Maps

Hi Adrian. As you had already cast your vote, I did not inform you together with other contributors to the Wikiproject Countries talk page. Your latest remark touches one of the reasons of the survey: There were several revert wars when the new maps became applied for European countries, and one of the main arguments by opposers is uniformity of maps. Thus in case the survey shows few people to support introducing new maps as these happen to become available, opposers will have an argument to revert till maps for a larger area (continent, Middle East) are ready; in the other case one can refer to the survey to show many to find introducing the new maps does not require to await the final outcome of a possibly long new discussion. Either way, arguments like "you are alone, most users find your [introduction of a new map | revert to the old map] inaccepable" will not be used to bully someone. The place of the survey is the proper one, it's the Project Countries: a discussion on a particular country's talk page might be irrelevant because Wikipedia does have guidelines that indicate a certain uniformity in style to be usually appropriate. The main page of the Project offers a structure for articles about a country as well. That does not mean such uniformity must rigorously be enforced, but one should be expected to have and deliver good reasons to deflect from it. Chances are that being able to refer to a general discussion and survey, may facilitate finding a consensus about maps for non-European countries. At least, that is my opinion or hope. For your information, next invitation was sent yesterday (the 7th) around this time:

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome can hardly justify reverting of new maps that had become shown in the infobox of some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 8 Feb 2007 19:24 (UTC)

[edit] Let's work together for a better atmosphere

You may read my interventions on the Dahn’s talk page (accessible only from the history page, since he reverted them all !). You also may read my message to Icar. After doing this, I am sure that you will have understood that I am by no means against user Dahn, nor am I advocating punitive actions. My only concern is to help restoring a breathable atmosphere, free from tensions and confrontation. In order to reach this goal, we need more solidarity and steadiness in front of disruption. --Vintila Barbu 15:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened to others (Daizus, Dpotop, Icar, myself) in their relation to Dahn is very similar to what happened to you: they bumped into the same unlikely energy deployed to obstinately defend absurd allegations, same absolute unwillingness to compromise, same violent arrogance. The whole approach seems rather to be aimed at creating conflict than at editing reasonable information. I would qualify it as meta-trolling, since it raises above common trolling, which is easy detectable at a semantic level. Meta-trolling creates chaos as well, but at a second-degree, spreading frustration, stirring aggressiveness and eventually making people run away from editing. I see a problem in our (Romanian) mentality when confronted with such situations: we mark a big Cross sign and keep away systematically from that person, though everybody knows that conflict –avoiding strategies never prevent conflicts happen, nor do they protect us from becoming the next victim. Let me put it straight: next time when it happens – and it will – let’s show more solidarity, regardless of our momentarily mood or editing interests.--Vintila Barbu 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watch it.

Adrian, don't tell other users to "fuck off"; it's a definite breach of our civility policies. Dahn was misbehaving as well, but you took it over the line. DS 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Hi, AdrianTM, edits like this are unacceptable. Please avoid personal attacks and profanities Alex Bakharev 23:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor corrections

Since I wouldn’t like to interfere with your work on Paul Goma, please consider these minor revisions:

• In September-October period of the same year he is (being) ex-matriculated from all the schools in Romania.
• In May 2006 he was dismissed by the Commission's president Vladimir Tismăneanu, he who justified the exclusion based on Goma's implicit and later explicit refusal --Vintilă Barbu 12:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I wouldn't like to offer certain users the least reason or example for intruding into someone's ongoing work. I know, it sounds pretty paranoiac, but that’s the way things have degenerated. BTW, I’m going to nominate your work for DYK. --Vintilă Barbu 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC) BTW, I know there is a tag which reads kind of "Do not disturb while working". --Vintilă Barbu 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone nominates an article here and after a couple of days, if OK, the "Did You Know" -fact referring to the article is displayed on the main page, so that the author gets his 15' glory...:) --Vintilă Barbu 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)