Jump to content

User talk:Olahus

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

Archives: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

The Roma population in Romania

[edit]

What are exactly the sources for the numbers of Roma in Romania throughout time? Kenshin (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulibasa image

[edit]

Hi Olahus, wondered if you could source the book in question to get some background on the person portrayed. It would be a pity for the image to be deleted if avoidable. Kindest Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Moldova map

[edit]

First of all you are right, I should have left a message on your talk page. I was a little busy yesterday, and I hope you understand the delay.

The map lumps together areas with different geographical meaning:

1. Northern Moldavian Hills, Dniester Ridge (Dniester-Rāut Ridge), Bălţi Steppe, and Middle Prut Valley are gathered together into Bălţi-steppe, which is not correct, because lowland and easy hills on one side and step hills on the other, should not be.

2. Ciuluc-Soloneţ Hills, Corneşti Hills, western part of Lower Dniester Hills, and northern part of Tigheci Hills are lumped together into Codrii, which again is not correct first because it splits Lower Dniester Hills and Tigheci Hills, second because Codri (one i) is the Romanian name for forests, not for hills. Kodry was a Russian name given by the Soviets to the area. They have no such hills in Russia, and the Soviet tourists did not know that codru=forest, so for the consumer Soviet tourist unknowledgeable of the geography of the country it might have seemed as if it was meant the hills, when in fact it was only meant the forests. Cordi, i.e. the forests nowadays only cover 20-25% of the area. If one says I want to see the Codri, a local, regardless of the native language, would understand the tourist wants to see the forests, not the hills. Therefore, one should not designate the whole area as Codri, but rather as its 4 geographic components.

3. Lower Prut Valley, Bugeac Plain, eastern part of Lower Dniester Hills, and central and southern part of Tigheci Hills are lumped together as Bugeac-steppe. Again, hills and plains should not be lumped together.

4. part of Podolian Plateau and part of Eurasian Steppe are lumped together as Transnistrian plateau, a name that never appeared before. Also the plateau (in the north), even easy one as this, is quite different from the very flat steppe (in the south).

I would suggest to create a new map, using google maps, NASA freely-available maps, or smth like that. Here you can find a table with these areas and the surface area, in km^2, they occupy. Unfortunately, I do not have software capable of making maps, but I would be very glad to help with anything. Dc76\talk 10:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer. As I said, the biggest problem I have is I cannot create maps. So if you can, please do. I will point out if some details are incorrect. Dc76\talk 14:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Transnistria-map.png

[edit]

Hi Olahus, it seems we both had the same idea and worked on improved versions for this map. I had just uploaded my new version when you uploaded yours. Would you mind if we leave mine as the new version? It is more detailed in some aspects. Thanks, Capmo (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

Hi - requests for page protection changes should be made at WP:RFPP, not the edit-warring notaceboard. Thanks, Black Kite 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False warning

[edit]

Don't send me false warnings, there was a concensus for the definition, there was never concensus for the strange looking map. (I see people rather opposing it on the talk page.) Please continue the discussion on the relevant talk page, not on mine. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered in your talk page. --Olahus (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTH

[edit]

The entire article needs rewriting, not as much because it fails to present "negative" aspects in Romani life (though admittedly it does), but mainly because it fails to mention important phenomenons, and, while parts of it tend to veer away from neutrality the Romani advocacy way, the text is actually in part polluted by antiziganist claims. A middle ground is needed, and that middle ground is determined not by adding up positive and negative facts we interpret, but by citing the conclusions of reliable sources. That said, your additions cited two newspaper articles, both of them taken out of context and used for sourcing things they do not actually say. Now, if the Cotidianul article is pure trivia taken out of context to source a generic conclusion, the EVZ one could still be cited, but not for what you used it - while it says something about a Romani initiative to offer more kindergarten access, and explains why some Romani families don't want to have their children educated at that level (which is equally true for thousands of Romanian families, and therefore irrelevant), the entire argument about "positive discrimination" etc. is not in any way reflected in the source.

And, btw: you do realize embedded links have to be copyedited, because wikipedia articles are not posts on a forum. You would really be helping everybody by formatting the embedded links with something descriptive and in accordance to standards (author, title, publication, publication date....). Dahn (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph on Romani education was something that I indented to add (but I've abandoned the idea like so many others because of lack of time), because, despite the apparences, the situation has improved quite a lot in this area. Kenshin (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this, please (both): Roma_minority_in_Romania#How_can_we_improve_this_article.3F Kenshin (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 and Hungarian Soviet Republic.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 and Hungarian Soviet Republic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question

[edit]

Because Russian authorities have been claiming "discrimination" ever since the Soviet Union fell. It started during the Intermovement era as concern trolling, and over a few years grew into full-scale accusations.

Ethnic discrimination never was a significant problem in Republic of Estonia. Partially because it wasn't a problem in the first era of independence. As you may or may not know, Estonia has been welcoming for ethnic and cultural minorities since very beginning, to the point that the Declaration of Independence is titled Manifest to all peoples of Estonia, and on its very first page -- item number 2, even before general human rights, in fact --, it promised ethnic and cultural authorities to minorities, particularly mentioning Russians, Germans, Swedes and Jews. The only item higher than this was the promise of equal protection under law, "faith, ethnicity and political outlook notwithstanding". And it might be that in some small part, officials have been slightly more aware about the potential for discrimination because of the accusations, and have thus been more careful when dealing with subjects where there's even a risk of such discrimination.

Unfortunately, Russian authorities have been "encouraging" Russian people in Estonia to find things that they could interpret as discrimination. Naturally, most Russian people are decent, reasonable folks and don't think that when, say, a car mechanic doesn't speak Russian very well, it must demonstrate anti-Russian discrimination, or that when one can't pay a bar tab in Russian roubles, it must be anti-Russian discrimination, or that when a person who speaks Russian but neither Estonian, Finnish or English is not hired to tender a bar in the tourist area of Tallinn, it must be anti-Russian discrimination. But the small minority who *do* think such things can occassionally be loud, and when it's politically convenient, Russian media will be sure to lend it a megaphone to boot.

As for Russians outside Estonia -- again, most of them are decent, reasonable folks --, some, very unfortunately, tend to accept the megaphoned accusations by Russia's state-controlled media. When the incidents have been mangled in this way, you wouldn't know that it was about a car mechanic not speaking Russian; you might instead think that the car mechanic beat up a customer for speaking Russian, or that there's an unspoken policy of not hiring Russophone people as bartenders in Tallinn. It's nonsense, but it keeps up the hopes and dreams of people who like to imagine that they're being discriminated against, and it maintains a dog-whistle politics meaning of the word "discrimination", as it is used in this context. This is why there are no "Discrimination of ..." articles for any other regions: it doesn't have the dog-whistle quality, so elsewhere, everybody concerned is quite content to discuss ethnic, religious or political discrimination under "Human rights ..." titles.

Naturally, all this can be backed by reliable sources, so an encyclopædic article *could* be written about it. But as you can see, I have enough on my wikiplate already, and I'm not particularly keen to open a new can of wikiworms. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A common trick is to sow confusion between the concepts of person who can speak Russian and person who can only speak Russian. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the problem. In the past, I had similar disputes with Russian users concerning Bessarabia, Transnistria, Moldova, the Moldovan "identity" (it's nothing but Stalinism), the "Eastern Slavic majority in Transnistria" (as if the Eastern Slavs were an ethnic group) etc. --Olahus (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian names

[edit]

Salut Olahus,

I prefer the Hungarian names rather than their official names because i am Hungarian. Are you astonished now? --Nmate (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your username on ro.wp

[edit]

Hi. We have a request filed at the Romanian Wikipedia from a user named Olahus2, who wants to usurp your username (I'm supposing you are the same person who opened the account Olahus on ro.wp). I noticed that you still haven't unified your account. My question is whether you intend to have a unified login and whether you would accept this other person to use your name on ro.wp.

From a copyright viewpoint, the usurpation seems acceptable (if you agree with it, or if you don't say anything for 7 days), because you only have a minor edit in the ro.wp article namespace (and a comment in a talk page). However, I think it's preferable for users to have the same name on all projects, and since Olahus2 cannot usurp your name on en.wp, it follows that he cannot have the name Olahus on all Wikimedia project, and as such he should think of a name that hasn't been taken yet.

Here is the request: ro:Wikipedia:Schimbarea numelui de utilizator. Please let me know how you want this to be done. Thanks. — AdiJapan 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the message above. I thought there were two different active users with the same name on ro.wp and en.wp. — AdiJapan 13:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Rotaru

[edit]

Hi. Please don't just blindly change Moldavian to Romanian. There's at least three editors (myself included) who think that it should read Moldavian. We've got a thread open on Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Romanian vs Moldavian if you want to discuss potentially changing that. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your edits on the talk page? All you said was "this issue is closed now." But it isn't - you're the only one pushing for that change. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why it should be readed "Moldavian" instead of "Romanian". Which point of view it actually? Sofia Rotaru's ? I doubt it. There is also no consensus to use the designation "Moldavian". --Olahus (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

User:Erikupoeg

[edit]

I have reported the ongoing issues with User:Erikupoeg - [here]. Thank you for your participation.--Rubikonchik (talk) --Rubikonchik (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo montage

[edit]

Hi Olahus. Could you provide an alternative image, preferably where the Romani people concerned have publicly self-identified as being of this ethnicity/background? Otherwise what we have is liable to removal per WP:BLP policy. If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you could reply at Talk:Romani people. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Why not. --Olahus (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

[edit]

I've seen you removed the Stanford's 1878 Ethnic composition map of the Balkans from the Balkan's article. This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders. I also noticed that you also removed it from any other article of wikipedia including the very article of the Berlin's Congress by saying that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not judging an historical document as it is a 1878 map as right or wrong, especially a map upon a treaty was determined. WP works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong. So if you have censuses that denying what the map is picturing, you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references. My opinion is that in the Balkan's article is better to avoid such maps because I believe that a day will come when the article will have 20 or 30 of them. But since for the time being had only one, of somewhat pro-Bulgarian view showing even eastern Thrace having a Bulgarian majority, it is good to give also a second opinion about, from a very well known cartographer of the era, enough serious as to influence a major treaty. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your post in my talk page, there. --Factuarius (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot understand your msg, plz restate it in more understandable form. --Factuarius (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My answer and any other future answer is (and will be) in my talk page. --Factuarius (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I found this map which is surprisely yours and as for the Serbia is almost identical with Stanford's map. There are some traces of Germans almost negligible (unlike your bold circles) and shows both Bosnia and Croatia being populated by Serbs as Stanford's. Also shows no traces of Hungarians and Germans in the part of Romania that the Stanford's map covers. Surprisely the common areas of the two maps are more or less identical, which is a rather rare phenomenon for Balkan ethnological maps, so I would like to ask you if this map is also wrong. And if so, why you bothered to download it? --Factuarius (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The maps are by far not identical. I cropped the two maps, so that you can easily compare them:


  • Kiepert
    Kiepert
  • Stanford
    Stanford
  • Kiepert
    Kiepert
  • Stanford
    Stanford

As you can see, they are major differences. The legend for Kiepert's map can be seen here: green for Croato-Serbians, blue for Romanians, red for Germans, white for Hungarians.--Olahus (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Banatul de Severin

[edit]

Trebuie vorbit cu cine se pricepe la asa ceva sa se creeze odata articolul despre Banatul de Severin. Am vazut destui tampiti care iau de buna faza cu Oltenia = Banatul de Severin, probabil dupa harti vechi si proaste, si nu vor sa recunoasca faptele si adevarul. Chiar acum pe commons sunt niste harti cu Bulgaria in a doua jumatate a secolului al 13lea in care Oltenia apare ca fiind dominata de bulgari, si alta in care scrie ca Tara Romaneasca a fost sub dominatie bulgara pana 1322 (le-o fi ciuda bulgarilor pe maghiari?). Partea proasta e ca prostiile astea apar aici prin articole si lumea le ia de bune. Cei care le fac sunt incapatanati ca niste catari si nu vor sa recunoasca dominatia maghiara din 1241 cel putin. Nu ai gasit nicio harta mai detaliata a Banatului de Severin? --Alex:D (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le-am trecut in mesajul de mai sus, dar uite-le din nou:
Nu sunt prostii deloc. Bulgarii au fost candva vecin cu ungurii, ungurii au luptat mai mult cu bulgarii decat cu turcii. Nandorfehervar, numele vechi al Belgradului provine dela bulgarii(nandorok in ungureste). Oltenia a fost banat unguresc, sub numele de banatul severinului, intr-adevar dupa Mohacs a o parte a fost atasata judetului Krasso(Caras), exact cum s-a intamplat in cazul judetului Bihar dupa 1920 ... partea ramasa Ungariei a fost lipit cu judetul Hajdu ... + Bulgarii nu au fost vecini cu sarbii, proto-romanii le desparteau ... --fz22 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vezi de treabă. În primul rând că Banatul de Severin se oprea în vestul Olteniei. La 1247 pe lângă acest teritoriu, în Oltenia mai erau Litovoi, Farkas şi Ioan, care - ce să vezi - plăteau tribut regelui maghiar. În 1277 sau când a vrut Litovoi să ocupe Haţegul, tot regelui maghiar îi plătea tribut, iar Bărbat l-a plătit şi el la rândul lui, după 1279. Nici picior de stăpânire bulgară acolo. În 1317 Basarab I are ceva treabă prin Mehadia, unde intervine într-un conflict între mai mulţi nobili unguri, iar până în 1324 a plătit tribut către regele maghiar. Treaba cu suzeranitatea bulgară în Oltenia şi apoi în toată Ţara Românească după marea invazie din 1241 cel puţin şi până în 1322 este o falsificare grosolană a faptelor istorice. Ce-ar fi să mă apuc să fac şi eu hărţi de genul ăsta şi să spun că prin Vidin, Craina şi pe unde mai erau grupuri de români la sudul Dunării exista o suzeranitate a voievozilor din viitoarea Ţară Românească? --Alex:D (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ai dreptate, eu ma refeream la banatul severinului = Oltenia ... --fz22 (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nu stiu daca exista niste studii pe tema granitei dinspre Oltenia a Banatului de Severin. Stiu ca citind lucrari mai ample despre Mircea cel Batran am gasit niste danii de pe urma carora se deducea ca anumite sate apartinand de manastiri au fost in Banatul de Severin, deoarece cand Radu I a pierdut Banatul a trebuit sa schimbe satele sau nu le-a mai pomenit pe cele vechi. Oricum, ceva trebuie sa existe. As sugera sa existe pe harta o zona cu nuanta din ce in ce mai slaba, nu o granita stricta. --Alex:D (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)--Alex:D (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Avand in vedere ca granitele nu sunt nicaieri clar definite, cred ca e singura optiune acceptabila. --Olahus (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Au astia ce au cu Oltenia. --Alex:D (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@fzz: Vad ca ai incarcat aceasta si aceasta harta. Surse independente vorbesc insa de alte frontiere (vezi aici). Iar in ceea ce priveste a doua harta, zona hasurata prezinat o oarecare favorizare nejustificata a habsburgilor si o defavorizare a otomanilor (dungi maro groase, dungi gri subtiri). --Olahus (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banatul de Severin printre altele

[edit]

Apropo de hărţile privind bulgarii, o referire la ceea ce vorbiţi voi aici, găsiţi în vol. III al cărţii "Viata Sfântului Nicodim de la Tismana" de la Editura online Semănătorul. La paginile 21-22 (fişier)/96-97 carte, se gasesc detalii despre istoricul bulgar şi o trimitere la o hartă a lui. In paginile următoare referiri la Banatul Severinului iar la sfârşit o hartă cu banatele cnezatele si voievodatele din sec. XIII-XIV. Scrieţi autorului pentru un format mai mare a harţii la wiki română user tomoniu. Trebuie citite întâi ultimele capitole din carte iată link-ul aici Alegeti vol III Nu am cont aici ca sa ma identific89.37.62.33 (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cumania - Muntenia map (fz22)

[edit]

check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Terratransalpina.png --fz22 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumania - Muntenia map (fz22)

[edit]

check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Terratransalpina.png --fz22 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roma personalities

[edit]

Hello. I suggest adding Juscelino Kubitschek to your picture of famous Roma, since he's the only person of that ethnicity to have become a head of state, as far as I know. Plus, it has the benefit of illustrating the important Romani community in Brazil, which is little known. For more details, check this page in Portuguese (cigano is the translation for Romani). Missionary (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lumifram (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Roma correction I noticed that there is a "typo" issue here: Instead of "Romanian" it should show "Roma". The typo creates a lot of confusion.[reply]

The wp article about him says that he is of czech descent. --Olahus (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Hi Olahus,

I'm sorry you didn't like the map I made about the Treaty of Trianon. I have seen you deleted it. I imagine that it may hurt your feelings as we are all sensitive about our history especially if it concerns such heated topic as nationalities. Anyways, I'm not here to argue with you. Have a good day. --Bizso (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a mistake. I answered in your talk page, Bizso. --Olahus (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

Buna ziua!

[edit]

Buna ziua, ma numesc Mihai si sunt pasionat de istoria Romaniei. As vrea sa va intreb daca ma puteti lamuri si pe mine cum pot face harti? In cazul in care doriti sa imi dati o mana de ajutor adresa mea de messenger este tyras1980@yahoo.com Va multumesc! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyras1980 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

Transnistria

[edit]

I think you should brake your proposal into three parts. I believe they oppose only one of the three. Anyway, the 3 deal with 3 different details. Related, but different. Propose in the talk page, and allow a few days for discussions, comments. Be ready to make counterproposals, small amendments, etc. Dc76\talk 15:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

[edit]

Counties of Romania

[edit]

Do you know for sure that the Harghita Mountains' name was given before the county? Do you have a reference? Nergaal (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will answer in your talk page. --Olahus (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will submit the page soon to wp:FL and I wanted to make sure the information is correct. Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

[edit]

Enhancing old maps

[edit]

I've never asked you this (as far as I can remember), but are you all right with me reestablishing the original colors (whitening) of old yellow-turned maps? You've never said anything to me against it but I just wanted to make shure. --Alex:D (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

So?[1] --Factuarius (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered in your talk page. Best regards! --Olahus (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Olahus. You have new messages at RashersTierney's talk page.
Message added 09:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

RashersTierney (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Olahus. You have new messages at RashersTierney's talk page.
Message added 12:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

possible source for alternative photo of Schmidt - German language publication RashersTierney (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

[edit]

Hello

[edit]

Hello, user:Squash Racket is accusing me and you of something... It is better to take a look for yourself in case you want to defend yourself or you want to say something. here. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please express your opinion if you have the time and the will :) here and here. Thank you. Greetings. iadrian (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Olahus. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iadrian (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Olahus. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iadrian (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

Boian Alexandrovici

[edit]

Hello, I see that you know a lot about Vlachs(Romanians) in Serbia, maybe you can give me an advice regarding the Bojan Aleksandrović article. The question is , should the article have it`s native (Romanian) name or it`s Serbian version as it has now? Chears. Adrian (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

[edit]

1861 Map

[edit]

If the map is wrong, as you yourself wrote in the caption, why have it in there at all? It is from 1861, 150 years old. There really is no need for it. Athenean (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not wrong in the deepest term of the word. It shows just the opinion from that time. The opinion was wrong, not the map. The map has a historical value. --Olahus (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shows one opinion from that time. There are many others. The issue is quite complex, as discussed in Demographic history of Macedonia. The gallery section of Albanians is not the place to discuss such complexities. It is impossible to give proper context within that limited space. Athenean (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wrong supposed Albanian presence on the Ambrakian gulf isn't an apple of discord today. That's why we cannot compare it with the Macedonian issue. The map has also some strengths: it shows the spread of Albanian tribes, the spread of Serbs in Kosovo before 1877 and the Albanian diaspora (Arnaut-Köy) in Trace (now Southern Bulgaria).--Olahus (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would be surprised at what is and isn't an apple of discord today. There are Albanian nationalists that would like Greater Albania to stretch all the way down to the Ambracian Gulf. But that's not the point. The point is, that such 19th century maps, unless properly discussed, are next to useless. There is simply no need for that map in this article, since it's not really about the Albanians, but about opinions in 19th century western Europe. Athenean (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about "some" Albanian nationalists? Greece and Albania don't have any territorial disputes anymore since WW2. However, the fact that the southern stretch of the Albanian area is wrong is already explaned in the map. And it is moreover undisputed, even by Albanians. I still believe that teh map is useful because it represents the Albanian tribes - and we don't have another such map in wikipedia. I would rather remove this map from the article with good reasons (see the discussion on the bottom). Even this map is only partially sourced concerning Greece (it has the information for Northern Greece, but not for Western and Central Greece). And this map is ... garbage. --Olahus (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "Albanian tribes" does the 1861 map show? What are you talking about? All I see is a tiny yellow speck somewhere in the middle of Bulgaria. Do you really think that is useful to our readers? As far as I'm concerned, all 19th century maps are garbage (especially the one from 1861 which you yourself admit is "erroneous"), and that's why I'm going to remove them. They are outdated, contradict each other, and serve absolutely no other purpose than to stir up nationalist passions and start edit-wars. This charade with the 19th century maps has gone on long enough, and it has to end. Athenean (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Albanian tribes: Klementi (subdivided in Hotti, Skireli etc), Pulati (subdivided in Gatsch, Toplani etc), Dukagin (with subdivisions), Mirdites (with subdivisions), Dibres (with subdivisions), Liapes, Toekes (the central Albanian tribe), Japides, Chamides. It is also the first map that mentions the 2 main dialectical groups: Gheg and Tosk. The "new" map contains by far more mistakes then every 19th century map and they are not even made by scientist, but by user who disregard some sources while drawing maps. --Olahus (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that is the lamest argument I have ever heard in favor of such a map. Do you seriously expect our readers to zoom in on the map 3X times and go over it with a microscope just to see the names of the Albanian "tribes"? We don't need this map to inform our readers that the Gegs are to be found north of the Shkumbin, and the Tosks to the south. No way. Not to mention that a map that shows Arta as exclusively Albanian-speaking, is, as you would put it....garbage. Athenean (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe that the users will zoom in on the map. However, we can cut the map to present only the Albanian linguistic area and we also cut off the south. However, concerning the other maps contested by me: there is nothing to be done with them. They can onla be removed. --Olahus (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, your map from 1861 is the good map, all the other maps are bad maps. Why? Because you just say so? You aren't providing any serious arguments, only edit-warring. Very bad idea. The maps from the 19th century are completely useless, and I will remove them. And if you continue with the edit-warring, I will request arbitration enforcement. As you can see from the discussion, you are the only editor who insists on these maps. No one else wants them, so don't play the "consensus" card, either. Athenean (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here my advice: do request arbitration enforcement. --Olahus (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]


Maps

[edit]

Please respond here--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

[edit]

WikiProject Dacia

[edit]
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) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanites

[edit]

Hi,

I'm guessing you're not very familar with Arvanites or read the article, because if you were, you would know that Arvanites are somewhat different from Albanians. They have lived in Greece for so long, and have intermarried with the Greek population so extensively that they no longer identify as Albanians, but as Greeks (and it also helped that fought on the Greek side of the Greek War of Independence. In fact, they resent being called "Albanians" and associated with the modern Albanian nation. It is thus a mistake to simply label them as "Albanians" in the same way as the modern Albanian nation. The only Arvanites that may still identify with the modern Albanian nation are those of Epirus, which are nowadays few. Hope that helps. Athenean (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until at least the end of 19th century they very seldom intermarried with Greeks. Olahus, I made an edit regarding your note [2].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is clearly fallacious. The Arvanites of Epirus are shown in the map, but because they are less than 10% (as the sources tell us), they are shown in white. But it is clearly a lie to say that "the Arvanites of Epirus are not shown on the map". Athenean (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a census data. Where is the lie? The source says nothing about "less tham 10%" as you say. The source (the Greek ministery of interior) says that they are no Albanians living in Greece, at lease not on the border to Albania. --Olahus (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the map is Le Monde Diplomatique, [3], not the Greek ministery of the interior. And Arvanites of southern Greece aren't "Albanians", and in fact would find your comment offensive. Athenean (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know the map. And what does the grey colour mean? It means "no Albanians". Greek doesn't recognize any ethnic minorities, just a religious minority: the Muslims of Western Thrace. The fact that most of the Arvanites have been assmiliated into the Greek people doesn't mean that their ethnic origin is't Albanian.--Olahus (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they identify as Greek, have intermarried with Greeks, speak Greek, what makes them "Albanians"? That they have Albanian "genes"? Come on now. Arvanites do not identify as Albanians, in fact, they are offended by the designation. Therefore you can't simply label them "Albanians" like the Albanians of Albania. They are a unique distinct group, different from Greeks (in terms of ethnic origin), and different from Albanians (after so many centuries of living in Greece and intermarrying with Greeks for the last 200 years). Your caption is also nonsensical: The Albanians of southern Italy aren't shown because the Greek government doesn't collect ethnic data? Athenean (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arvanites are assimilated Albanians. We have an article about them. The Albanians of southern Italy aren't shown because the map doesn't represent southern Italy. Same for southern Greece. --Olahus (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument boils down to "They have Albanian 'blood', therefore they are Albanians". However, the actual situation is much more complicated. They do not call themselves Albanians, they do not identify as Albanians, they reject any association with the modern Albanian nation. But I'm glad you agree at least that the reason the map doesn't show southern italy and greece is because it doesn't represent southern italy and greece. Which means your caption about Greek government policies is irrelevant. Athenean (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Albanians do not live only in Southern Greece, but also in Northwestern Greece and they are also not recognized. --Olahus (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

Notification

[edit]

Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this ongoing discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

Hello

[edit]

Hello,

I saw that you edited this picture [4]. Do you know on what bases this image was created? Based on what reference or picture? A reference is being requested at some articles about this picture. Do you have any information about this? Greetings. Adrian (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

Your maps

[edit]

Hello!

I'd like to ask, how (with what program) do you create the maps like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_work.PNG

Thanks in advance, Andor Szalontai (andor.szalontai gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.140.43 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

[edit]

Generalkarte von Mitteleuropa

[edit]

Salut, ai cumva acces la hartile din colectia Generalkarte von Mitteleuropa? Din pacate toate scanarile de pe net sunt de proasta calitate si as fi avut nevoie de o scanare buna (gen 600-1200 dpi) dupa dreptunghiul din dreapta jos, cu Brasovul. Imaginea din link e varianta originala din 1898 (ar fi ideala), insa a mai fost scoasa una si prin 1914 parca. --Alex:D (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ar trebui sa fie 1:200.000 --Alex:D (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mai exista si o versiune Spezialkarte 1:75.000, pe care am gasit-o doar prost scanata si imbinata aici: [5] Din pacate nu poate fi tiparita la calitate... Ma gandesc ca in Germania s-or gasi, daca nu atunci unde?:D --Alex:D (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

[edit]

Vlachs of Serbia

[edit]

Hello, since there is a little dispute at this article, and I saw that you contributet a lot, and you are familiar with this issue, maybe you could take a look at the talk page? [6]. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

[edit]

Weltkarte 1828

[edit]

Hallo, ich wollte fragen ob du von dem Scan der Weltkarte 1828 auch eine Version im nicht-jpg Format mit etwas besserer Qualität hast ? Mir gefällt die Karte sehr und ich würde sie gerne als großes Poster drucken.

Viele Grüße Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.82.132.116 (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

[edit]

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) 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

[edit]

modification of File:Europe work.PNG

[edit]

I want to ask you if you can to add Ireland in blue color since "The Government decided on 17th July 2012 to cease restrictions on labour market access in respect of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals, to the Irish labour market, with effect from the 1st January 2012." http://www.djei.ie/labour/workpermits/bulgariaromania.htm

Thanks in advance.

Bluindbroke PrahaCZ (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

[edit]

Republic of Ireland from 17th July 2012 allows Bulgarian and Romanian nationals to its labour market

[edit]

modification of the map on "File:Europe work.PNG"

I want to ask you if you can to add Ireland in blue color since "The Government decided on 17th July 2012 to cease restrictions on labour market access in respect of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals, to the Irish labour market, with effect from the 1st January 2012." http://www.djei.ie/labour/workpermits/bulgariaromania.htm

Thanks in advance.

Bluindbroke PrahaCZ (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes you made to the map. But I noticed that "Spain reintroduced a requirement that Romanian workers obtain a work permit in 2011. This requirement expires on 1st January 2013." [[7]], which means there is a difference for the first time between Bulgarian and Romanian citizens. And therefore, this difference has to be reflected somehow in the map.

Thanks again.

Bluindbroke PrahaCZ (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla HONORIS CAUSA Diploma

[edit]

Good morning,

Would you please let us know if you have the original document of the Nikola Tesla HONORIS CAUSA diploma obtained in 1936 from Scoala POLITECHINCA Regele Carol II of Bucharst ROMANIA when a delegation from our University go to Belgrad at the 80th anniversary of Tesla. We can attached the only pictures available of the document attached at http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C8%99ier:Diploma_Nikola_Tesla.doc.jpg .

My name is Muresan Camil, student at the same faculty, speaking in the name of Sorin Dinea, the director of the Museum - Politechnical University of Bucharest.

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfoot0208 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Romance-speaking Europe for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Romance-speaking Europe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance-speaking Europe (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to acknowledge use of your map of the 2001 Ukrainian census ethnic pluralities. How would you like to be cited75.232.233.252 (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to use the 2001 Ukrainian census ethnic pluralities map for all the purposes you wish, as long as you don't modify the map. --Olahus (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Olahus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Romance-speaking Europe for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Romance-speaking Europe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance-speaking Europe (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Russian Military Districts.png

[edit]
Notice

The file File:Russian Military Districts.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1692 map of Peloponnese by Vincenzo Maria Coronelli

[edit]

Dear Sir, congratulations for your work at Wikipedia. Do you have a 1692 map of Peloponnese/Morea (South Greek mainland) by Vincenzo Maria Coronelli ?

Kind Regards, Vasileios Foteinopoulos son of Nikolaos Mobile+SMS: 0041778169945 Viber only: +306980549345 email1: basosfotios@gmx.ch emal2: filippvilpu@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.12.129.242 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carpathian mountains map

[edit]

Hello, I have fixed your map but didn't want to upload it without your permission. You included a city, city of Vršac in Serbia, Voivodina as a part of the Transylvanian plateau which is a really old scientific classification. Officialy, it's the part of Serbo-Macedonian massif. I have it here: https://imgur.com/a/R0tteVX , and city of Vršac is on these coordinates 45.1201 21.3043. God bless you my man! Christ is risen! +I have pasted this from the original uploader's talk page, but yeah, that's all+ Christ is risen! Kolikojerokoko (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Olahus&oldid=1234487873"