User talk:Octavian8

Barnstar

		Civility Award
		For keeping calm in the face of adversity; well done Chzz ► 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can keep your head when all about you, Are losing theirs and blaming it on you
— If—, by Rudyark Kipling, available online here

Chzz ► 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian-Romanian war

Felicitări pentru articol; vreau de mult să scriu pe această temă. Acum, nu uita să citezi surse sub forma de note ca să ştim mai precis de unde provin informaţiile. Recomand cel puţin o nota pe paragraf. - Biruitorul ^Talk 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ce ziceţi, puneţi notele alea sau mai stăm aşa fără note? - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eu înţeleg de unde provin informaţiile, dar aici avem anumite standarde la care ar trebui să aderăm. Aşa se scrie un articol ca lumea. Sau aşa, sau aşa. Observaţi cât suport bibliografic au la sfârşit? Chiar şi dacă e mai mult doar o singură sursă, contează şi paginile. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi Octavian,

I'm translating your article on Hungarian-Romanian War into Hungarian. I'd like to use the images Hu-RO War1919 phase3.jpg and Hu-RO War1919 phase3.jpg, please upload them to the commons. Mulţumesc, Renard, 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renard de hongrie (talk • contribs)

Hi again,

In the meantime I've begun to make some own maps based on yours and others. For I'll have to cite the sources, please let me know from where your maps originate, in what book(s) they were published.

You wrote in the section Aftermath: The troops supporting Horthy were supplied with arms by the Romanian Army. In the regions under their control, the Romanians took over police and administration duties. I never heard about it and couldn't find any data or resources; please provide some. Mulţumesc again, renard de hongrie (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Sorry for the late replay but I don't check my account that often. I think it's better that you did your own maps, as you can now annotate them in Hungarian. Actually I thought about doing such a ting myself, in English, but had no time for this. The info about the weapons for Horthy's troops comes from the book by Kiritescu. If you want I could provide you with precise page citations. RegardsOctavian8 (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Yes, please give me the exact page numbers referring to this case, and if possible, some short quotation from the text as well. I also will need the numbers of pages which the two maps can be found on, in order to make a precise reference to my resources when my maps are ready. If you like, I can make the same maps with English labels as well, or make blank maps without any labels, then you can provide them with Romanian labels. Hi, renard de hongrie (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The citation with respect to the weapons provided by the Romanians to Horthy's troops is now in the English article. The first map is in the same book at page 555 and the second at page 587. Regards, Octavian8 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you. See the new maps here. renard de hongrie (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something You Might Be Interested In...

[1]Baxter9 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hint, I was already aware of the site. It is also cited in the Bibliography section of the article.Octavian8 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hu-Ro War, 1919

Salut! Sorry for my late answer! The boundaries of the country were established in 1920 after the Treaty of Trianon. Therefore the HSR fought "de jure" in Upper Hungary, Kingdom of Hungary against the Czechoslovak forces.Baxter9 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Transylvania was part of Hungary. The romanian forces reached the border of Hungary not of "Principality of Transylvania" it was dissolved. (1867) Your edits (the old border) are redundant, not accurate and misleading.Baxter9 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to say that the Romanian army advanced only up to the Western Carpathians, which is the border the old Principality of Transylvania shared with Hungary before 1867. In 1914, to talk only about the situation before WWI, the borders of Hungary were on the Eastern and Central Carpathians, and included Transylvania. I just removed 'then in the Kingdom of Hungary' and placed a link over the 'old Principality of Transylvania' pointing to the 'History of Transylvania' so that everybody can see that 'de jure' at that moment in time Transylvania was part of Hungary, even if 'de facto' the majority of the population in Transylvania spoke already for a union with Romania. What is redundant, inaccurate and misleading here? What edits are you talking about?Octavian8 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The W. Carpathians did not constitute the border of the principality, because the Partium was also the part of it ==> It would be better to remove P. of Transylvania. The population of Transylvania in 1910 was 53.8% R. 31.6% H. 10.7% G so the majority is not true, only half.Baxter9 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "Hungary" and "Princypality of Transylvania"==>Romanian army reached the Western Carpathians.

Even if we believe the 1910 census, that besides other flaws overemphasises the number of Hungarians over others in Transylvania, the Romanians form an absolute majority (>50%) and together with the Germans, that supported the unification with Romania they form almost (>64%) a two thirds majority. The W.Carpathians constituted in part the border of the old Principality of Transylvania. The South-West part of the border lies on the W. Carpathians.

I agree to just leave the Western Carpathians, it seems like the best compromise solution. Octavian8 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1919 Hungarian–Romanian War (edit war in autumn 2011)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Koertefa (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting the work of others and contributing meaningfully to Wikipedia means disussing changes and not imposing them.Octavian8 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please, discuss them, do not just blindly delete the changes that was not approved by you first. And, please, stop removing sources, it is quite disruptive. The article is not yours, editors do not need your permission before editing it. If you have a problem with a modification, then you are also free to rewrite, but, please, do not just recklessly delete sourced contributions: identify your problem with them, so we can work out a variant that is acceptable for everybody. Thank you for your cooperation. Koertefa (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, it is you the one modifying without discussion. The whole point of discussing is that it takes place PRIOR to modification. So first discuss, then modify. I will delete any modification that has not been PREVIOUSLY agreed in a discussion in the talk page. I have stated this from the very beginning and I see this as a matter not only of courtesy but of promoting cooperation.Octavian8 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out in the Talk page of that article, you should not enforce your own rules. You should not delete, for example, the modified version of the first sentence of the lead without explaining your problem with it, since it is more precise than the original one, which was a POV and several editors tried to improve it. You keep replacing the modifications with your own version without highlighting your problems with them. It is not always necessary to have discussions prior to modifications, it is only necessary if somebody has a problem with a modification. Then, a discussion can begin, but it is important that both parties should point out their problems with the others' variants. This can be a basis for the discussion that will hopefully end with a consensus. What you are doing is that you want to force editors to ask your permission before making any modifications, no matter how small they are, viz., making a sentence more precise. Koertefa (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to add to what I have said both here and on the talk page. I have tried reasoning with you for the last two weeks until a few hours ago it seemed to no avail. However, seeing that you have stopped editing the article before discussion, I interpret this as a good sign. I have already posted a few replies on the Talk page, so check them out. Octavian8 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain it?

[2]Fakirbakir (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already did answer to your post. Please look at the respective Talk page.Octavian8 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okFakirbakir (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer (showing the way user Norden1990 understands Wikipedia)

Attack? What do you mean? You understate facts and history and you do not accept either an argument. You so handle that article, as if it would be your property. I would rather believe such historians like Mária Ormos or Ignác Romsics, not you, who denied the obvious fact of lootings. So you can go to hell together with your threatening. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norden1990 is one of those trying to edit the article. No further comment.Octavian8 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. List of edits of what I mean:

So not only does it seem that there is an edit war there, you seem to have edit warred as well. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, if you imply that I am edit warring because I revert changes that have not reached agreement on the Talk page, I am guilty as charged. The fact that I can't do this 24/7 and the other don't want to dicuss before editing lead me to asking for page protection in the first step. Furthermore I have already followed all steps you have listed here. So what do you try to do here? Take sides or defuse the conflict by acting impartially? Octavian8 (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking door number two, trying to defuse the conflict by acting neutrally. Also, this was just for edits made by you a few days ago, anyway. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 10:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy to hear this, then why did you put that tag? Did you read the discussion about this tag on the article's talk page? Octavian8 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An admin repeatedly said not to remove the POV tag. Not only was it removed more than twice, the edit warring and edit conflict continued. I felt the reversion back to that edit was neccessary. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What admin was that? There was a tag and a discussion on the tag with the user placing it. In light of the discussion it became clear that the tag was misplaced. If you are interested you can check the discussion on the Talk page. Octavian8 (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was not misplaced, you (Octavian8) just simply kept deleting it. It is especially necessary now, since several neutral references were removed from the article before it became protected. The current article is clearly a POV and its neutrality is strongly disputed. Koertefa (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality is disputed by you (Koertefa) on the basis that you don't like the article. Again you find yourself posting without knowing why. Had you have looked on the talk page, you would have seen that there is a text proposition where all references are included, with respect to looting. If you talk about the lead, I have gave you an answer about it too, the lead is not POV now, you want to make it POV with your edits. As you see, the dispute is very you-centered. Perhaps you should start trying to understand that what you consider as not-POV is very very POV. Start thinking constructively, meaning try to understand the other "side" as well, otherwise you will remain very POV. Octavian8 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for the edit war and article protection

If you take a look at the talk page, you can see that I am not the only one who has problems with the neutrality. Anyway, we have (at least) two users (you and me) with their own ideas. Both of them think that the other's idea is a POV. So far it is not a big problem, as long as we are constructive enough and (eventually) reach a consensus. My problem is, however, that you (Octavian8) are in a much better position than me, since: (1) the current article is written from your point of view (which I think is not neutral), (2) it is currently protected (so I cannot edit it even if I wanted to), and (3) you have no interest in reaching a consensus, since as long as there is no consensus, the article remains the same, i.e., reflects mostly your point of view. Therefore, my problem is that you are absolutely not motivated in reaching a consensus, in fact, you are motivated against a consensus (since: no consensus => your ideas remain represented). But, let's hope that I am wrong... Koertefa (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I take a look at that Talk page:

I see that all those having a problem with it are Hungarians. I see also that your problems are not with facts but with semantics. You are not satisfied with presenting facts, you are satisfied with commenting them in favor of a Hungarian point of view, and not any point a view but a revengeful one.
I see also that every time you (these Hungarian editors) have come up with a problem I have answered you. I see that I have propositions about modifying the text to accommodate your fact-related comments without making the article balanced in favor of a Hungarian point of view.
I see that I always talk consensus and do something about it (see my propositions to change the text) and I also see that now you have started also talking about it, which is a good thing, but do nothing about it as you continue to accuse me instead of talking about the article.
I see that the article got protected precisely because you Koertefa, together with Norden1990 and to a lesser degree Fakirbakir were editing the article before reaching consensus. Trying to impose your point of view past the necessary discussion.
I start being bored by your endless and baseless accusations, as I think that my whole behavior proves that I am not the way you describe me, while your whole behavior proves that your accusations from point (3) fit better your person than mine.
I also begin to think that consensus means for you to accept your point of view. But let's hope that I'm wrong...

The main difficulty in reaching consensus is to truly understand the other and to respect him and his ideas. During our conversation until now I have constantly tried to understand you and to reach an agreement with you only to be rebuked by you, because I want to stick to the facts and you want comments that promote your views. I have also not shown any disrespect towards any of you, only to be insulted by one of these Hungarian editors (Norden1990) and to be constantly and baselessly accused by another one (Koertefa). Octavian8 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example to support my comments from above. Before you started with your edits, in the Aftermath the article simply stated what was taken from Hungary, with the mention that it was a lot (i.e., extensive booty). Now you come and insist on calling this not booty, but looting, which is a clear bias in favor of a Hungarian interpretation. What did I do? Instead of insisting on keeping the original fact-based version, I agreed to the mentioning of looting, together with the more serious of your references (thus seeking to accommodate your views and offering you my hand) and I also added the Romanian point of view that the booty was not looting but reparation to make the section unbalanced again. I have also added an explanation why are there two points of view for the uninvolved reader. What are your comments to this? No no good, the looting issue has been softened, and above all what is with the picture of Romania soldiers feeding Hungarian civilians? This is PROPAGANDA!!! Now you tell me who is seeking consensus here and who is there on imposing his views? Octavian8 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address my main point: that you are motivated against a consensus, since as long as there is no consensus, your viewpoint remains the dominant one in the article. I think that your seemingly fair attitude that the article should not be modified until a consensus is reached is just an efficient strategy of keeping your opinion dominant. In my opinion, you should only ask for a consensus, if you have a clear problem with a new edit and you can state your problem. Therefore, I think that you should recall (delete) your "rules" from the Talk page of the article. Koertefa (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all your points. You on the other side have not addressed mine that is: you try to impose your point of view on the article past the necessary consensus. Because when you make an edit, this is an arbitrary act of your own. It is only you that sustain your point of view and act only in your name. Conversely if we discuss before the edit, we can reach a solution which is satisfactory to all. However, you seem to simply distrust ante factum my abilities to reach consensus in a discussion, and this only because I have been consistent in my approach and acted by the rules I made public before (and which I won't delete as I see them as belonging to common sense). Instead of seeing that I work principle-based, you project your frustrations on me and assume I can't be moved from my position. Well, try to come with sensible arguments, like for example the one with the Hungarian Jews and see that I can be convinced. However come with arguments like "I want this info in the lead, because I say so." and please don't get angry when I tell you to get lost (and also don't interpret this as a prove for the fact that this is "an efficient strategy of keeping your opinion dominant" ). Octavian8 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Hi Octavian8, I will only be able to continue our marathon-style discussion (which I enjoy by the way) on the article (especially on the Aftermath section) next week. Thanks for your patience, Koertefa (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk your time, no problem. I also enjoy it. See you.Octavian8 (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Octavian8, I am back. Koertefa (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that we could negotiate a quite neutral version of the Aftermath section. Of course, if one of us had written the section alone (without the other's commets and criticisms), it would have been different, but surely less balanced and hence, less valuable. Here, I take the opportunity to thank you for your cooperativeness and wish you a Merry Christmas! :-) Koertefa (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Koertefa, thank you very much for your wishes, I appreciate it, as I appreciate our cooperation, Merry Christmas to you too! Octavian8 (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Octavian8, are you OK? I did not see you around for a long time (40 days or so). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Romanians

Octavian! You have not given any reason for yor repeated tagging. You are engaging in edit-warring. I do not know how long this can go on. If you have a problem with my sources why don't you discuss it on the discussion page. I actually liked your having found appropriate quotes from Oltean, but we must stay as close to the original text of these respectable secondary sources as possible, given the delicate nature of the subject. We also must devote more time to doing due diligence on our sources and use only secondary sources from the recent post-Ceausescu years simply because now there is complete freedom of ideas and research in Romania as at respected western universities where for example Oltean works. Eravian (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eravian, before you start 'talking', why don't you check the discussion page. I even made a special section where I summarize my problems with your sources. This special section is actually redundant, as I have discussed these problems - I would say at length - under other topics, but you have the tendency to read only what fits you.

I find it funny that you are lecturing me on edit-warring, after the way you behaved (and still behave) on that article and after I resorted even to warnings - to no avail as I have just seen the day before - to make you stop such practices. It's like "the thief yells thief" :-)...Octavian8 (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2009 (UT

Octavian! Thank you for calling me a thief. Finally I found your September 2nd entry on the discussion page, you inserted it in the middle of the page. First off let us deal with Bryn Mawr Classical Review. You are not specifying what your problems are with that. Are you not accepting that this is a major scientific journal where exactly the kind of peer-review that Wikipedia requires is taking place?

Read my text properly and see I call you in no ways. Can you make the distinction between a figure of speech and an accusation? Can you interpret quotation marks?

My entry was at the PROPER place on the talk page: in the section named after the article section we are discussing.

Show me some impact factors of Bryn Mawr Classical Review and then we can talk about how major a scientific journal this is.Octavian8 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.William Faulkner: As I have pointed out many times before publication through a major, respected international news organization such as the BBC or RAI Italian national television is absulutely appropriate and acceptable for Wikipedia. The real important thing though is that the author is an archeologist and the editor of a major archeology journal i.e. Current Archeology. Professor Dr.Livio Zerbini: Same argument as I have described many times before. Publishing through a major international news organization is acceptable and appropriate. Why is it so difficult to understand that the head of the Archeology department of a major university does have high international standing. You may check with the University of Ferrara, Italy, as I have done and find out yourself. He is a nice man. he will answer your E-mail.

Eravian (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what YOU think, publishing in news organizations and TV shows is not acceptable in any scientific community.Octavian8 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iancu de Hunedoara

Hello, since i am having some unusual problems on this article, i would like you to invite as a neutral party to try to resolve this problem. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the NPOV disputed since the article clearly contains only the Hungarian POV. It would be great if you could find some English sources because Romanian/Hungarian are not so reliable about this subject. Greetings. iadrian (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is OK with me, though I think we should tag sections and paragraphs not entire articles. What should the English sources contain? The fact that he was most probably Vlach? Ther are plenty of them... The fact that he is considered by Romanians as a national hero? I'll look for such sources when the stubborn Hungarian editors that want to deny his Romanian link come with English sources stating that he is considered by Hungarians a national hero.Octavian8 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Since i can`t decide which part has disputed NPOV (i think that the whole article has that problem) please move the template at the section where it should be. The whole article carries a heavy pro-Hungarian POV. Yes, everything should have a source, even something so clear that he is a national hero in Romania and everything he represents to the Romanians. I have tried to add that part many times but i just can`t manage to work it out since some users think that the Hungarian POV is the most important. Looks like some of the Hungarian nationalist still can`t coap with the fact that Iancu de Hunedoara was a Romanian. If you represent valid sources he or anybody else can be stubborn as much as he/she likes, this is wikipedia, not somebody`s personal page to contain data only some of us like or dislike.iadrian (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rascoala de la Hotin (Khotin uprising)

buna ziua, am vazut pe pagina de discutii de la Khotin Uprising ca detineti surse bune referitoare la aceasta rascoala. daca sunteti dispus pot rescrie eu acest articol. deja am contribuit semnificativ la Tatarbunary Uprising si il voi termina in 1-2 sapt (sper). daca sunteti amabil putem sa colaboram. cu stima.Prometeu (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buna ziua, am doua carti din perioada interbelica care au cateva referir la acest subiect. Souneti-mi in detaliu de ce aveti nevoie. Toate cele bune.Octavian8 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eu am doar o singura carte care vb despre rascoala dar ofera putine informatii referitoare la desfasurarea efectiva. sub ce conditii ma pot folosi de cartile detinute de dvs? daca se poate putem continua discutia pe email, dar am vazut ca dvs nu aveti o adresa introdusa.multumesc.Prometeu (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eu am un manual de istorie din 1930 si o carte despre Ro in WWI scrisa tot cam in aceeasi perioada care fac scurte referiri la rascoala. Ideal ar fi daca am avea si referinta mai mordene.Octavian8 (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cartea mea e din 2004, e destul de buna dar face mai putin referire la sirul evenimentelor petrecute dar este o sursa destul de buna. Despre rascoala de la hotin sunt cam 5-6 pagini. in cartea dvs despre Ro in WWI cate pagini sunt despre Rascoala de la Hotin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometeu (talk • contribs) 13:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In prima carte, care e un manual de istorie de prin 1930 exista doar o referinta despre lupte crancene cu bolsevicii la Nistru. In a doua carte, care e tot de pe atunci, mai e o pagina si jumatate cu data despre trupele romane participante la operatiile din zona, lista de pierderi, etc. Oricum, eu sunt de acord cu IP-ul care are grija ca tag-urile sa ramana. Articolul asa cum e acum e doar propaganda bolsevica asezonata cu 'surse' ucrainene care au preluat sursele bolsevice si au inlocuit 'omul sovieic' cu 'taranul ucrainean'. Daca scriesti articolul ar trebui sa contactati si editori ucraineni, altfel nu ajungem nicaieri.Octavian8 (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, interesanta cartea a doua poate reusim sa facem schimb de informatii. Eu aproape am termintat Tatarbunary Uprising si sapt. viitoare o sa ma apuc de scris la Hotin. Oricum mai ramane si rascoala de la Tighina care am vazut ca este scrisa in wiki rusa.Prometeu (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Si despre Tighina sunt cateva randuri in cartea resprectiva, cam o pagina.Octavian8 (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poate reusiti sa pozati paginile respective si apoi sa le puneti pe internet pentru a putea avea acces la informatie.Prometeu (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry pentru intarzierea cu care raspund. O sa incerc sa scanez paginile. Dati-mi o adresa de e-mail la care sa le trimit. Daca le uploadez pe Wikipedia nu raman mult acolo din cauza politicii referitoare la copyright.Octavian8 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nu e problema. Daca le trimiteti pe email s-ar putea sa dureze foarte mult si sa mearga foarte greu. Folositi http://www.transfer.ro/ si apoi linkul il puneti aici pe aceasta pagina. Este foarte usor de folosit.Prometeu (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puteti sa va introduce ti adresa de mail in panoul utilizatorului. ramane anonima. de asemenea am vazut ca sunteti bine informat in legatura cu armata romana in perioada interbelica. poate ma ajutati si imi spuneti exact ce unitati au participat la inabusirea revoltei de la Tatar bunar, cine s-a ocupat de coordonarea generala, etc. in legatura cu cea din hotin voi incepe sa lucrez dar inca nu m-am hotarat la o schema de cuprins. cred ca o sa fac similar cu Tatarbunary Uprising. daca aveti idei va rog sa le expuneti. multumesc.Prometeu (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You were mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_would_like_to_report_the_activities_of_some_editors_.E2.80.93_ethnic_abuse_and_edit_warring_from_the_side_of_eastern_european_editors --Samofi (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutions and Interventions in Hungary and Its Neighbor States

What do you think about this title above? Would it be suitable for page of Allied Interventions in Hungary? It is a book title.[3]Fakirbakir (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK. If you intent to rename the Allied intervention in Hungary to this, I would support the move. Something else, have you checked my text proposition for the Aftermath of the article on the Hungarian-Romanian war? Octavian8 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly participate, within the limits of the available free time. Octavian8 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Anonimu and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Codrin.B (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]