User talk:Romanian-and-proud

Recent edit to Romania during World War I

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Romania during World War I, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider I did pretty much all of that, except the 6 months thing. Does that seem fair to you? Being blocked in a minute, but taking half a year to unblock? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian-and-proud, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Romanian-and-proud! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please just stop?...

Can you guys please just stop removing my modifications?...Look, it doesn't matter that the respective articles were like that for a long time, and you just want to maintain the status-quo, the changes I want to bring are meant to give more details, and a new perspective to things. Nothing that I modified is not true, yet much of it got deleted...I know I'm a new guy, but I really know what I'm talking about, and I would appreciate if you'd respect my opinion and efforts...Trust me, nobody knows Romania better than a Romanian patriot like me, so please, stop thinking that you know it better and hamper my attempts to make things the way they should be. Just let me give Romania what it's Romania's, it's the only thing I ask for!

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:COI before you make another edit. And maybe change you user name. It does not give confidence that you are here to help the project frankly. Your remark that colleagues are "Hampering my attempts to make things the way they should be" seriously does not help your credibility. Irondome (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Invasion of Yugoslavia

G'day, clearly you are of the view that Romania provided logistical support to the Axis invasion. If you have a reliable source for that assertion, then add it to the article. Until then, do not edit-war. It will get you blocked. BTW, when you boldly add something to an article and you are reverted, the appropriate action is to start a discussion thread on the talk page of the article, not edit-war. The relevant policy is WP:BRD. I have rolled back your edit. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They passed through our territory to invade Yugoslavia and we let them, they invaded from our territory too, that's what allies do. It is even specified lower in the article. What more source/evidence you need?

a reliable source that says Romania provided logistical support to the Germans for their invasion of Yugoslavia, of course. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far from all of the stuff written on the Wiki is sourced in the first place, not even on the same article, so your demand is kinda hypocritical...

Please stop edit warring against talk page consensus

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World War II. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 controversial 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. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Juan Riley

Hi R-a-P. I am sorry if I appeared like an arbitrary asshole for reverting your addition to the WWII infobox. These infoboxes have a long history and in my opinion are only useful if they are very very brief and summarizing. I am also sure that the WWII article's subsections and other WWII related articles can be improved with your knowledge of Romanian history. In this I am just seconding what I see that User:Irondome has commented about on the article talk page. By the way my wife agrees..I am an asshole. :) Juan Riley (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henri_Coand%C4%83&diff=694895362&oldid=656999042 Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you, indefinitely, as an account that is apparently here only for the purpose of engaging in nationally-motivated tendentious editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. Um...can you please unblock me? Your measure was unnecessarily harsh, you even blocked me indefinately, as if I was the lowest type of editor. Look, I am sorry for my exaggerations. I would like one more chance, just one, to be able to edit. There are people out there, who are literally biased against my country, and I can give you various examples. I need to talk to them and make sure the pages about my country are accurate. Please, give me one more chance, I promise to behave from now on. I will try to be as neutral as possible and I will no longer insult anybody. Please... Romanian-and-proud (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your behaviour here is not just a matter of some "exaggerations". The problem is that you're here for entirely the wrong reasons, with a motivation that is simply not compatible with the goals of this project. Your request here has not convinced me that this motivation has changed within the last day, nor will any further request from you be likely to convince me of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. Hey, don't talk without knowing what you're talking about, please. I edited some articles in Romania's favor, but I never did that without any base or without basing it on fact. I can give you the full list of my edits, and I don't think you'll find any major issue with...most of them at least. So please, talk to me, or listen to me, because it's really not what you think. I'm sorry if I failed to contain my emotions and if I offended, but I do believe I did more good than bad on the Wiki. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. For instance, I edited the result of Kerch–Eltigen Operation. It was "German defensive victory", despite the fact that there was a substantial Romanian contribution, so I changed it to "Axis defensive victory", so it would be just for everyone. Because the German contribution to the Siege of Odessa was next to negligeable, yet you don't see "Romanian victory", you see "Axis victory". That's a major problem on the Wiki: ass-kissing the Germans to the point where you actually give them merits that are not theirs, or not fully theirs. Each contribution, by anyone, should be acknowledged and respected. Then, I was speaking about being biased against Romania. Well, the most sounding example is the Romanians article. As you can see, or rather not see, is that there is no gallery. Even very small ethnic groups, like the Gibraltarians, have their own gallery of representative people. There is a file with a gallery of representative Romanians, but whenever I put it, someone deletes it. I don't know what you make out of this, but all I see is that someone wants to humiliate us, to make it seem that we have no representatives, and I can't have that. There is also the bias against the Romanian Army. In various articles, the Romanian Army is called "weaker" for the simple fact that it was Romanian, and not because we were lacking the equipment the Germans in the first place promised to us and they failed to give! You still don't get it yet? I AM here to build a neutral Wiki! My pro-Romanian stance is a counterweight to the anti-Romanian stance of some editors, which brings about a balance or, as you like to call it, "neutrality". I am also against sacrificing commodity for accuracy. Like giving no attention or details to the Romanian troops and only let the Germans take the whole attention. And this problem is not only about Romania, but also about other German allies as well! And I am not ok with that. If you are ok with that, with the sacrificing of accuracy for commodity, then I'm sorry, but YOU are the one who shouldn't be here, not me! And finally, the gramatical errors. I found in various articles, such as Battle of Karanovasa, many speaking mistakes that only bring shame to the Wiki. I was going to correct them just the next day after you blocked me. I have to do it, because if not me, then who else? I know that you don't give a shit, and almost nobody else does, but I do! I care, and I want to make things right and just for everyone! And that's why I hereby request to have my block lifted. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. Look, it's Wiki's 15th birthday! Can't you show just a bit of amnesty and unblock me? One chance man, it's all that I'm asking. I screw up again, you can block me for good. But, everyone deserves a second chance, so please, let me have mine. I really don't think I'm asking too much.

Fut.Perf. Please unblock me. I have such important things to discuss and change, and I promise I'll do it nicely from now on. What, you think you're perfect? Firstly, I'm a new guy, just joined 2 weeks ago, so blocking me like that, out of the blue, and with no expiry date is unjustifibly harsh. I mean come on, we all make mistakes, that doesn't mean we can't change or learn from them. And besides, it's almost Christmas. Don't you want to be kind, make me a present, and unblock me? Really, my actions don't really hurt anyone, but your actions definately hurt me. You are restricting my freedom of speech and opinion. Isn't that what you "civilized" people advocate so much? Look, I learned my lesson, all I want is one more chance. If you don't want to unblock me, at least please set an expiry date. Because I really don't deserve this, and this is not the time of the year to be mean and unforgiving. So please... Romanian-and-proud (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a request to be unblocked, then do it with the {{unblock}} template. That will make the request more obvious to other admins. In some ways you're more likely to be unblocked by another admin, as a second opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Andy DingleyWow, after I did what I did, and said what I said to you, now you help me? I feel so ashamed right now, and I'm really sorry that I misjudged you. I'll see what I can do, I really appreciate the tip, thankyou and forgive me. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think most new editors deserve second chances. But see WP:ROPE for those who don't take the hint.

I also share your view that there isn't enough coverage of Romanian engineers. I'd like to see a lot more on Constantinescu, for one. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be wonderful. I especially dislike to see my country absent from universal lists of items, as if we would not exist. I was accused of cultural theft, and even though I admit that what I was doing, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Cultural theft is what France is doing with our Constantin Brăncuși. They refuse to let us bring his remains back in the country, and sometimes even inform the tourists that he was actually a French. And it's really hypocritical, because some French call us thieves, yet they do to us the exact same thing! Romanian-and-proud (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. Blocking is for you the solution for everything. Look Mr Perf, me and other editors might not be as perf as you are, but that doesn't mean you can just throw us away! What is this, the Third Reich? If one's imperfect, you just dispose of him/her? We are new, we are crude, we need time to adapt and older editors willing to help us do that. This isn't your Wiki. It's not only your opinion that matters. I came to what I though was a civilized and open society, not to a Police State filled with censorship! I have ideas, good ideas, wishes, aspirations, articles I wish to care for and that nobody else cares! Why you have to be like that? Can't you just be a good forgiving person, especially now, during holidays? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki is run by ignorant dismissive pieces of shit, who think that the world is made of only ~10 countries. What person, in the right mind, would want to colaborate with such a narrow-minded society?

Unblock me please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Romanian-and-proud (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked because I did tendentious editing, and I do admit that I also often lost my temper. For years, I've been reading the Wiki, and only recently I decided to make an account, because many things displeased me or I did not understand them. At first, I was quite unable to control my new freedom of editing, and engaged in an all-out "attack", with little consideration for the history of the article or the other users. Yes, I admit it and I want to apologize and make up for it. I calmed down now, and learned my lesson. I also made various positive contributions, and if you want, I can list them, though I think you can see them on my user page. I vow that from now on, I shall first post a new section in the talk page of an article before going to edit it. All I want is to make up for my mistakes, and a chance to prove that I can be an active, valuable member of this community. As a new editor, this is my first block, and I do believe I deserve at least one more chance. I would be greatful if you would let me have that chance. Regards, Romanian-and-proud (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Every last post you have made here has been either hostile or pushing a heavy political point of view. We are a collaborative environment writing a neutral work, you seem to have problems with both collaboration and neutrality. There are plenty of forums where you can behave in such a manner, we are not one of them. HighInBC 22:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yeah, once or twice! For God's sake, look at my contributions! Most of them are just fine, since nobody cancelled them for as much as 2 weeks! And as I said, there are articles about my country with tons of gramatical mistakes that only bring shame to the Wiki! I want to correct them since it seems I am the only one who really cares! Yeah, sure, it's so much easier for you to block than to listen, typical American laziness! Romanian-and-proud (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off I am most certainly not American. Secondly that is a fine example of the type of hostile comment I referred when I declined your request. It is not enough that you do useful things, you also need to get along with others. HighInBC

But they won't listen...and some of them go against my edits or against articles related to my country for no reason, absolutely no reason! Am I really supposed to be calm? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to be civil, and you are also expected to be neutral. Not everyone can do it. HighInBC 07:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I got that ok? The only thing that makes me be like that right now is the fact that I'm blocked. I repeat: I have my own opinions and ideas, and want a chance to express them in a civilized way. I am aware of my past mistakes and all I ask for is a chance to make up for them. I am angry right now only because my freedom of speech and opinion are denied, despite me saying more than once that I'm sorry, more than once that I'm ready to change and make up for my mistakes, and more than once that I'm a new guy, and that everyone treats me like the ultimate threat to the Wiki, despite me only wanting to improve things. Yes, I made mistakes, I'm a human being, it's natural. But also as a human being, I believe in the concept of "second chance", and I am very frustrated that you deny that to me. Please...give me just one, more, chance. If you unblock me, I'll take a whole day off from editing, in order to calm down and gather my thoughts, and make civilized edits and discussions. Please... Romanian-and-proud (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The freedom of speech does not extend to private websites. You are not just like that because you were blocked, you were plenty hostile before the block. We do have a concept of a second chance, we call it the standard offer. If you really want to return then you can try to follow the advice there. HighInBC 15:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did pretty much all of that, except the 6 months thing. I promised that I will not continue my behaviour, I even vowed! I can be many bad things, but I'm not a liar. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admins: Romanian-and-proud has been evading this block through the IP 86.123.127.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (cf. earlier 86.123.124.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), before the block). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf.Can you really blame me? All you do is dismiss all that I do or say! Dismiss-dismiss-dismiss, that's all you know! You'd rather silence people that talking to them and justify your injust actions! You use block for everything, as if the Wiki is your Communist dictatorship and you can just censor anything you don't like! Alas...screw you, I don't even care anymore. I won't sore my Christmas for some common asshole like you. Get a life, and stop meddling in those of others. Goodbye.

I'm getting more pissed at what you're doing man. I'm trying to keep my cool over here, but are you serious? Cursing and blaming Wikipedia society isn't going to help lift your block whatsoever. Having seen this common attitude to those who are ignorant, I can make out the type of person you are. The concept of a second chance is very much welcomed in Wikipedia, although there are times where that isn't possible. You've received warnings before the blocks, and what have you done about them? You continued on with your arguments as if it didn't exist. By the way, do NOT bring in personal life into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an official encyclopedia, and we shouldn't be arguing about real life, but instead improving the encyclopedia itself. "Nothing personal, it's just business" I am still pretty new to Wikipedia myself. You say you aren't a liar but after one of the admins told you to be civil, you told him that you got it. After that, you tell him "Can you really blame me? All you do is dismiss all that I do or say! Dismiss-dismiss-dismiss, that's all you know! You'd rather silence people that talking to them and justify your injust actions! You use block for everything, as if the Wiki is your Communist dictatorship and you can just censor anything you don't like! Alas...screw you, I don't even care anymore. I won't sore my Christmas for some common asshole like you. Get a life, and stop meddling in those of others. Goodbye." Alas, I don't have any more to say. I hope you will get unblocked soon and turn a new leaf. Wish the best of luck for the future. FiendYT 05:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Romanian-and-proud. 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]

'Sup guys, would you please hear me out?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Romanian-and-proud (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been a year...How time flies huh? I make this post, as an IP for obvious reasons, because...I had enough. I had enough to be afraid when making an edit that they will likely be undone, I had enough of researching for hours just to see my work dashed away like it's nothing, I had enough of hiding like a rat behind all these IPs.

I admit my mistakes, and I request you to accept my apologize. I was rude, I was spastic, I was arguing about unsourced content, I never bothered to read the rules, I was just very vitriolic and unpleasant, unpleasant even to me now, looking back.

But...I have changed. I learned to be civil, I learned how to write articles, I found a ton of books for reference, I read the rules, and I am ready to give a positive contribution, if I get a second chance.

One of the reasons I didn't do this earlier, is because my account was labelled as a sock puppet of some guy called Iaaasi, which I believe is a stretched form of Iași. I am not him though, I swear to God I am not, I...I don't know how to prove I am not, but I ask you to believe me. I thought I am doomed forever as a contributor after being labelled as one of his socks, but I finally decided to try make a request, because what do I have to loose?

I know I've been breaking the rules with my IP editing, and thus I do not request an immediate unblock. All I ask is the time to be changed from "indefinite" to 6 months. I vow to not make any edits within these months, I am willing to wait for my second chance. I mean it this time. Please, give me one more chance to show my good and productive side. I will even change my name, to something more objective.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.73.171 (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]