User talk:Transylvania1916

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, Transylvania1916, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• How to add those all-important references
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sadads (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Battle of the Olt Valley.

User:Onel5969 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Very nice job on the article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Great work on the Romanian WWI campaign

		The World War Barnstar
		Kudos to you for creating new articles that cover extensively the Romanian campaign of WWI. Keep up the good work! Mentatus (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

I would have been very proud when I found your new pages about the Transylvanian campaign. I feel much more enthusiasm and as soon as I have enough time besides my historian studies I want to start developing the Hungarian language version of pages from this subject. Thank you a lot. Greetings from Hungary. -Történelem p (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I am definitely happy that you appreciate my work this much. Best regards. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Transylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brassó (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Encore!

		The Feather Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the tremendous work you have done in creating high quality articles on an under-represented front of World War I. I hope that many more will follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope that you are planning on taking most of these excellent articles to GAN. If this is of interest and you have any queries or would like any help, please don't hesitate to contact me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

An invitation

Hello Transylvania1916! Thank you for your contributions to military history-related articles.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors who are also working on military history topics, please take a look at the WikiProject Military history—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please add your username here, and a project coordinator will soon be along to welcome you. If you're not sure about joining, why not sign up to receive our monthly newsletter, The Bugle? It is a great way to get a feel for the project. Regards, Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Great work!

Such nice well sourced edits and content in Romania in WW1! It really needed improvements! :D --Havsjö (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it needed. Not done yet, I will get back to it. But the hiatus will last 2 more weeks, until I get winter break. Transylvania1916 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Transylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibănești (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Red Link Removal Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work on articles about Romanian participation in WWI! Super Ψ Dro 12:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That being said, you have some minor problems about the format of the articles, but that is just a fussy point on my part. Good work! Super Ψ Dro 12:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you create articles about the series of lost battles of Romani-an army in WW1?

Why don't you create articles about the series of lost battles of Romani-an army in WW1? Because Romania had not industry and urbanization to support a war without constant import and support of foreign powers. Or because in the recently united Romanian Kingdom was made of patchwork, and people had not enough strong identity yet.

Why don't you write, that Romanian army had the highest death ratio in the history of WW1 armies, they actually fell like paper soldiers. It doesn't sound a good army. No wonder that Romanian was the shortest lasting fron of WW1. Within 3 months (record speed) Bucharest was captured.--Liltender (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That's cute. Meanwhile, back in reality: Erich Ludendorff himself stated - and I quote - "The Rumanians are bad soldiers; the Austrians even worse.". In no instance did an entirely Austro-Hungarian force defeat a Romanian force. The only engagement during the Battle of Transylvania that was won by a mostly Austro-Hungarian force - and yes I will make an article about it in the near future - was won by the German general commanding the Austro-Hungarian force. The Romanian Army - crummy as it was with its limited training and equipment - still had all its units loyal. I didn't write this anywhere yet, but do you know that a KuK Czech Regiment, when the Romanians invaded, literally moved out of the way and let them pass, and days later it defected altogether? The KuK couldn't even keep itself united, the Romanian Army didn't have that problem. The Germans themselves scolded the weak leadership of the Austrians. And - while the initial losses of the KuK can be excused given that the Romanians were outnumbering them 10 to 1, it was no longer excusable by October. As late as 3 October, a Landsturm Cavalry unit was crushed under a Romanian advance, which continued until 5 October. Then, the Austrians could not keep up with the retreating Romanians, and later they could not break through the mountains. Romania on multiple occasions defeated mixed German and Austro-Hungarian forces, all by itself. While on the other hand the Austro-Hungarian Army never defeated a Romanian force without Germany's help, and I've got a whole virtual library to prove it. Transylvania1916 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

When Romania entered the War (during the Brussilov offensive when most A-H soldiers were in the Russian front, most military operations were joint operations of A-H and Germany army. Romanian push in transylvania were stopped by civilian insurgents , the only such event in history, when an army was stopped by insurgents, and it tells everything about the queality of Romanian soldiers. Romania lost the highest ratio of military death during the war, it tells everything about its quality, and within 3months Bucharest was captured. I don not need to tell more. It was a fast short campaign against a fragile enemy.--Liltender (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, the push into Transylvania was called off by the Romanian High Command after the Bulgarians and Germans won the Battle of Turtucaia. AusHun's allies coming to the rescue once again. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Liltender (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Romanians were able to push into Transylvania until the army did not errive. The railway system was overloaded because of the huge number of refugees in the civil population.

These are only the major battles in Transylvanian territory:

General Erich von Falkenhayn was appointed head of the German-Austrian-Hungarian army, who launched a counterattack in early September. On September 10, he defeated the Romanian army next to Hátszeg (Hațeg), and in the same day they recaptured Petrozsény (Petrosani) On September 28, the Falkenhay-led army won the battles between Kisbár and Nagybár (Baru), resulting in the re-capture of Nagyszeben (Sibiu). he Romanian divisions which retreated from Szeben (Sibiu) were completely destroyed in the battle series of the Vöröstoronyi-szoros (Pasul Turnu Roșu) After this, the Szeklerland was liberated. The 2nd Romanian Army still attempted an offensive at Brasov on October 4, but unsuccessfully, they were completely displaced from Transylvania. Erwin Rommel, a later successful leader, also fought and was wounded on the Romanian front.--Liltender (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the mere inaccuracy of those dates makes me cringe. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, there must be many articles about the battles of the displacement and flee of the Romanian forces from Transylvania during WW1.--

Quantitatively, no, not really. For instance, it took the Romanians 3 battles to reach the positions they had on 26 September. But it took the Germans and Austro-Hungarians one battle and three days to reverse all these gains, by 29 September. And this is only with the 1st Army. The 2nd is a weird one: they actually defeated the German attack, but instead of counterattacking, they used this victory as an opportunity to retreat. And the 4th/Northern Army didn't fight any major battles; the Romanian High Command ordered it to retreat, and it retreated with negligible losses from the slow/tired Austro-Hungarians. Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Romanians were not famous from their military in WW1. I posted above how Romanians were smashed where the main army arrived (even without numerical superiority). According to the numbers, the Romanians fell like paper soldiers. I don't need to say more: Romania could enlist a tiny army of 750,000 men during the war, and it had 250,000 military fatalities! it is 33%,r the highest during the war. Paper soldiers... That was the prize for their fleeing --Liltender (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't care. I just make the articles about battles. Every, single, engagement during the Battle of Transylvania. I'm currently at the 1st Army's battles. And whatever happens, happens. I don't deem the result of the battle, I just write the article. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No you concentrate only about the battles before the arrival of the main army in full strenth, and you try to hide battles where the Romanian army was bloodly defeated and rethreated. It's a typical and very transparent type of (silly infantile) nationalist behavior.--Liltender (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm just taking them in calendar order. The Battle of Nagyszeben/Hermannstadt/Sibiu will come in 2 months at most, and that's a decisive Central Powers Victory. In Transylvania - strictly by number of battles - the Romanian 1st Army fought 10, from which only 3 were losses. I already covered one of the 3 defeats, more will come as I progress along the dates. Not my fault that the defeats came at a later date. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I read the details of the above mentioned battles, and the Romanians were not in numerical inferiority. They were not trained and they had generally bad eqipments and lack of enough weapons, no wonder that Bucharest was captured within 3months. Extra fast collapse, with a Romanian army which lost 1/3 of its soldiers die on the battlefield. The terrible death ratios mean that this Romanian army was not prepared for a real war.--Liltender (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Or more like it wasn't prepared for the Germans. I'd like you to understand the immense difference between German and Austro-Hungarian troops. There are these two examples: Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Serbia wiped the floor with the Austro-Hungarians in 1914, but when the Germans joined in 1915, the country fell like a castle of cards. Then there's Italy: slugging it out with the Austro-Hungarians for 2 years, then Germany comes, and voila: you got yourself a Caporetto. Romania, unlike Italy or Serbia, can at least claim multiple victories against German forces, while Serbia and Italy have none. I don't think you're giving the Romanian Army enough credit. Erich Ludendorff stated that it was better than the Austro-Hungarian one, and the Austrians themselves had words of praise: On 20 September, the Viennese newspaper Neue Freie Presse read: "As far as one can say at present the Rumanians generally fight very well. Reports have reached us from the Hatszeg sector about Romanian units which, having lost half their effectives, still continued the battle. Similar facts have been observed in other sectors.". Yes, you are right that Romania fell faster than Serbia. But you obviously seem to overlook the fact that unlike Serbia, Romania had to fight the Germans virtually from the start, and - considering its lack of equipment and training - I think it did a respectable job, personally. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Germans did not prove more efficient than Austro-Hungarian soldiers. Statistical fact, When Austro-Hungarian soldiers and offcers executed the German high command's warplans the A-H officers and soldiers performed so well and effective like German soldiers and officers executed the plans, with similar effective low loss maneuvers. That's why I can't understand what are you talking about. In a comparison: what was the performance of Romanian army? Colossal high ratio losses and rapid collapse.--Liltender (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, do you think it's fair that you're basically holding tiny Romania at the standards of a Great Power? Romania was a tiny country and it defeated Germans in battle on multiple occasions, nuff said. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

How long last the Romanian attacks? Until the serious military transportation problems - which were caused be the flee of civilian population - were not solved.--Liltender (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the Central Powers also had much better railway communications than the Romanians. At Hermannstadt, for instance, the Central Powers had 3 railway lines which could supply them, but the Romanians had only one. Anyway, I don't think it's fair of you to pick on the fact that the Romanians had numerical superiority, since this was very early on and it was the only advantage they had over the Central Powers. The Central Powers had better logistics, better training, better equipment, and much more experience. In Transylvania, the numbers turned by 18 September. By that time, the Central Powers had amassed over 200,000 troops, while the Romanians had to send away a third of their forces, leaving them with 10 divisions. When the Germans achieved their breakthrough, it was only with a numerical superiority of their own of more than 2 to 1, or 40 battalions and 2 Cavalry divisions against 18 Romanian battalions (see for yourself). So let's just think about the logic for a second: if the Romanian Army was as bad as you seem to think, then why would the Germans of all armies find it necessary to outnumber them more than 2 to 1 in order to achieve a breakthrough? And my final point on this topic is that the Romanians had too little numbers. They had less than 1 million forces to operate on a front twice the length of the Western Front, which was serviced by up to 5 million well-equipped Western (British and French) armies. So you see, context matters. Transylvania1916 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The general infrastructure (lik erailways too) were better than in backward Orthodox country Romania, but it did not matter, because the railways were not usable for the Central Powers until the huge number of civilian refugees overwhelmed the railways! This situation give enough time for Romanian to advance and gain territory. As soon as the the railways became free for the armies, the Romanians were pushed back. That was the story.--Liltender (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Remarkably all this happened in just a few weeks, and indeed the German storming of the Romanian passes is remembered as one of the most impressive military achievements of the war. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/87950/wwi-centennial-germans-storm-romanian-passes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liltender (talk • contribs) 12:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Battle of the Danube (1916)

Hello, Transylvania1916. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Battle of the Danube".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Invitation

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!

Also considering your name and your passion of history which seems that most users ask that on the Wikiproject's talk page. Editoneer (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, how do I join? Transylvania1916 (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Transylvania1916

Thank you for creating Battle of Nagybár.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Needs a article description tag.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creep^Talk 11:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Transylvania1916

Thank you for creating Battle of Mount Csindrel.

User:Eddie891, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Looking at Prelude to Blitzkrieg, I'm not sure that this was really a 'battle' as much as a brief engagement. I think it might be better titled along the lines of "Csindrel campaign", but I don't think it was really a 'campaign either'. Thoughts? It might be worth leaving a message on WT:MILHIST for additional input.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Eddie891}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll cut off my break on the Wiki to reply to this. Should be back to active duty in about a month or so. But, regarding this, I've seen articles about Civil War battles in which there were a handful casualties total, and those engagements were still referred to as battles. And so this one, with well over 200 casualties total, seemed to me qualified to be referred to as a battle, when put against lesser examples. Transylvania1916 (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Romania as a modern great power

I personally have nothing against Romania or its inhabitants, but I can not approbate its promotion to great power suggested by you at first. In my opinion, it was one of the strongest then middle power. Nonetheless, I highly esteem your effort to maintain neutrality and head on subject close to you. 185.135.2.64 Deditus Particulo ^{Write to me} 20:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 20:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Working in niche areas

I noticed your "rant" and I sympathize that your area of interest is neglected. I also edit in areas that few others on WP are interested in, namely US forts 1885-1945 and US Navy ship class articles 1885-1940 (except battleships, which are well covered by WP:OMT). However, I have a different outlook on my situation. I personally went into WP wanting only to provide information, not seeking recognition or even much collaboration. I feel lucky that my work has received little scrutiny or criticism of any kind. I take lengthy breaks (usually two or more months) when I feel like it, especially when I want to do a lot in my computer games. I've never submitted an article for GA/AC/FA, as I don't think I'd like the emotional stress of the process. I've attracted exactly one fan on WP, and this person is only on WP intermittently and doesn't make large-scale edits. I do feel lonely sometimes, but it's the path I've chosen. I'll quote Harry Truman: "Do your duty, and history will do you justice". RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some inputs and article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to article Black Sea and inputs @ Talk:Black Sea#Some article restructuring and overhaul

• Also please do have a look at Talk:Black Sea#Coastal cities, requesting help; and help expand Black Sea#Coastal and port cities on Black Sea coast and trade.

• And also requesting to visit Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları, an article is about Ottoman times female slavery with a special focus on the state of non-elite common women slavery in those times; presently looking for more specific inputs and expansion regarding female slave trade across Black Sea coastal cities and help expand the same if you find yourself interested in that topic too.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Romania and Cold War Africa

Hello Transylvania1916. I've noticed you've been adding information about Romanian involvement in the wars in Angola and Mozambique. I'd just like to ask you to keep a lookout for any info on potential Romanian involvement in Uganda, particularly during the 1970s. Me and another user have been trying to collect info on foreign involvement; it was known Amin sought out the Soviet Union and East Germany to help him supply his army and build his intelligence services. Let me know if you see anything. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Uganda? Haven't thought about it, but sure. Very unlikely though. Nicolae properly supported only liberation movements and/or socialist African states, and Amin's Uganda was neither. Also, it would be a fairly inaccurate assumption to automatically tie Romania to Soviet initiatives, especially under Nicolae. Though a Warsaw Pact member, Romania was...its own thing, simply put.

Update: I found this, and it proves the negative. Ceausescu was completely neutral, taking no sides in a run-of-the mill statement that simply called for peace. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ceaușescu legacy

Interesting question. The first thing I would say is that there are millions of Romanians and opinions vary considerably. Regarding Ceaușescu, age and education are important factors. Nobody under age 35 or so remembers communism; perceptions among this cohort are shaped by older family members, schools, books, online. Conversely, people 45 and older all have clear memories of the period that inform their views of the time and the man who defined it. People with higher education take a more nuanced view that accounts for both positive aspects (let’s say, more industry, more serious schools, infrastructure development, engaged diplomacy) and negative (personality cult, one-man rule, pervasive surveillance, dissent outlawed, closed society). They also make a distinction between the “good” years (1960s-80) and the “bad” (‘80s). Less educated people might have a narrower perspective (“My father was a policeman and things were great”; “I shook his hand once and his eyes impressed me”.) Of course, now that 31 ½ years have passed, many find him irrelevant, especially the younger group.

Having said that, if I had to give a general answer, I would say the average Romanian ultimately sees him as a failure, and would never seriously want to go back to the period of empty store shelves and gunning down border crossers — but does recognize the merits of the man who built roads, railways, a subway and bridges (in dire contrast to the present leadership); built up an industrial base that produced all kinds of goods; cultivated and facilitated the best and brightest students; and gave Romania an outsize voice on the world stage.

Iliescu is clearly a more minor figure but being still alive, is I suppose more present in the public mind. In fact, there’s a running joke about his being immortal. My sense is that no one really likes him: the right for obvious reasons, the modern left because his politics were rather antiquated, his ideological heirs because younger faces have come along as he’s faded away. At the same time, there aren’t very strong feelings against him, except among the dedicated minority who want to see him tried for his role during the Revolution and hold him responsible for killing demonstrators. He did play some role in getting Romania into the EU and especially NATO, though that isn’t widely acknowledged. It’s true that he was elected three times, but two of those (1990 and 2000) were under rather unusual circumstances, and I think any political capital he had 15 years ago is mostly gone, except for a small core of supporters.

I don’t know how useful these reflections have been, but hopefully I’ve answered your question at least in part. — Biruitorul ^Talk 04:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Biruitorul Hello, I thank you for your time to write this and for the info and opinions. A valuable insight for me. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the leading role of the Romanian Communist Party technically remaining for almost two years after the Revolution: no, I don’t think that’s correct. Decree 2 of 27 December 1989, issued by the National Salvation Front, states that among the measures taken in order to build a democratic society are “abandoning the leading role of a single party”. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Your edit to De-satellization of Communist Romania has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa My bad, hope it's better now, I re-added the info with a much more thorough rewording. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It's still almost identical to the source. You need to completely re-write the content in your own words, not just substitute a few words while presenting the same ideas in the same order using almost identical wording and sentence structure.— Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah...No. You are being absurd, arbitrary and unreasonable. I've seen sources in featured articles reworded much less than what I just did here. Besides, if it really concerns you, then... Why don't you do it, instead of depriving readers of the Information? Transylvania1916 (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Socialist Republic of Romania. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Your recent editing history at Socialist Republic of Romania shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Socialist Republic of Romania, you may be blocked from editing. See especially WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The next stop is WP:AN3. The onus is on you to find consensus for your additions. Please stop bludgeoning it into the artiucle. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay...May I please reinstate the info in Romania's section while we discuss the infobox and heading? Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Get consensus for your edits first now that they've been challenged. I'm not especially opposed to working with the section on Romania, but let's be careful to leep it proportionate once we agree on a change. It's compulsory. And remember that infoboxes are condensed summaries, and are not suited to conveying shades of meaning, small degrees of distinction, or nuance. This is a frequent affliction of infoboxes, where they are made to carry the weight that should be the article's burden. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Axis Powers

Hi Transylvania1916. I absolutely agree with your edit [[1]]. The infobox some time back was changed to list tripartite signatures for some weird categorization that didn’t have an rfc vote for consensus. It inappropriately puts puppets states, Finlands situations on the same standings as other major axis members. Sub categories were something I advocated for as apposed to hiding away factoids as note markers such as stating which states were occupied with puppet regimes put in place like Solvak Republic and Independent State of Croatia, members who were quasi axis members like Finland and Thailand and etc. I have tried to push for it but repeatedly met with disagreement with the same user that felt your edit also wasn’t well sourced enough. I agree with them that perhaps this is worth starting a discussion for consensus on the talk page. An RfC may be viable. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

1RR

You've violated the WP:1RR and the WP:BRD cycle at The Holocaust. Kindly self revert and start a talk page discussion or you may be reported to arbitration enforcement. Thanks. - Daveout(talk) 08:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Responsibility for the Holocaust

Thanks for your contributions to the Responsibility for the Holocaust page. However, your notes were not in the format used throughout the page and the singled-out flags do not give a fair impression to the typical reader. While i have changed the citation formats to match the page, please be sure to use that approach going forward. If you have a means of including all the representative perpetrating nations by flag, by all means do so. France, Poland, Ukraine, and other countries are not accounted for by the flags (among others) you posted. You'll need to account for them as well. I understand your informational notes, which help cover some of the other occupied countries etc., but you must understand that given the sensitive nature of this topic, careful attention must be paid to all entries. Obviously, you had no malice and made good faith edits, but the typical Wiki readers often brush over notes and merely take the text and imagery at face value. Keep that in mind for any pages that contain sensitive information. If you are unable to make the fixes and expand accordingly, your contribution will likely be removed; if not by me, then by one of many other editors who pay close attention to Holocaust related pages. This not an aspersion of any sort, just providing you with an opportunity to make complete what you started. Happy editing. Obenritter (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Obenritter. Thanks for your message. Look, the point of the table is to address state responsability. More precisely, the independent governments which perpetrated the Holocaust. Poland and Ukraine had no governments at all at the time. Slovakia, Croatia and Vichy France were puppet/client regimes. The table is Nazi Germany, plus govts that weren't an extension of Nazi Germany, to any degree. Transylvania1916 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Obenritter Hello again. As stated above, that table concerns state responsibility for the Holocaust. I added in the table the 5 German clients/puppets that had some degree of control over the process. Is this better? Transylvania1916 (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your recent editing history at Austria-Hungary shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Courcelles (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Formal Contentious Topics warning

In accordance with the Wikipedia:Contentious topics procedure, I am formally warning you that your conduct has fallen short of the standards expected within such topics, particularly our rules on civility. Edit summaries like this one, edits like this and a general pattern of battleground editing on talk pages. This warning will be formally noted in the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Should you continue to make edits that fall short of expectations, you may be subject to sanctions, including topic bans from Eastern Europe, or even a block from editing all together. As a formally logged warning, this may be appealed under contentious topic appeal procedures. 12:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Courcelles (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You also need to read wp:spa, wp:NOTHERE and wp:rightgreatwrongs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You also really really need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You also need to read wp:or, you do not get to decide which sources are RS based on how you interoperate their accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Then who gets to decide? Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

wp:rsn, you take a source there and argue its not an RS. Then the community decides if the spouse is not an RS based upon its reputation for fact-checking, not your opinion of it (read wp:rs). That would be done (usually) by arguments based on how other RS perceives it, and not based upon (for example) one source disagreeing with it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not disagreement, it's the completion of an omission. General sources on the Axis Powers do not specialize on Romania enough to know to give it due weight. Those authors who do delve properly into WW2 Romania realize that Romania really was a major Axis power in all but name. This is what I've been trying' ' to get you to understand. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And that is an assumption by you. You do not know how much research they did, you were not there. Wieght is based upon what most RS say, if one source say X and 10 say Y is violated wp:fringe to give wp:undue weight to the lone source. And yes it is a disagreement, as you are saying Rumania was a major axis power, despite what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite what RS don't say. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

My last word here, get WP:CON and WP:JUSTDROPIT if you do not, as right now you are sailing very close to wp:tenditious territory. You win debates here by the strength of your policy-based arguments and not the strength of your rhetoric (or wp:npa) or sheer volume (read WP:NOTDUMB). Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

So what matters most amounts to these procedural technicalities and not the information presented itself? Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got to understand that Wikipedia operates through collaboration and consensus. If you want to think of that as "procedural technicalities", then yes. If it didn't it would just be complete chaos. You have an opnion. I have an opinion. Slatersteven has an opinion. If our 3 opinions are all different there needs to be a mechanism for resolving it otherwise it would just be paralysis. That mechanism is partly all our policies and guidelines and partly our collaborative processes. If you want to call them "procedural technicalities" that's fine. But if an editor doesn't want to accept them they won't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. it's as simple as that. DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ukrainian collaboration with Romania during World War II

Hello, Transylvania1916. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ukrainian collaboration with Romania during World War II, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)