User talk:Olahus/Archive2

Re

Olahus, daca recensamantul ii numara separat, wikipedia ii reda ca separati. Orice discutie despre asta se poarta in alta parte. Discutia ta nui e cu mine si nu e cu wikipedia: e cu statul sarb. Ceea ce ai facut tu se cheama manipularea informatiei. Daca statul sarb a manipulat-o inaintea ta e o alta discutie. Comprende? Dahn 09:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nici statul sarb, nici cel bulgar nu a pus vreodata semnul de egalitate între vlahi şi aromâni. Vlahii sunt conform statului sârb (cât şi a celui bulgar) o populaţie romanică nedeterminabilă (sau nedeterminată), deci poate fi (teoretic) vorba atât de daco-români, cât şi de aromâni. Pe de altă parte însă, ambele în ambele state istoricii consideră că vlahii sunt persoane emigrate din Valahia în cursul secolului XVIII (istoricii români îi privesc drept urmaşii populaţiei romanice din fosta provincie romană "Dacia Ripensis"). Însă, în momentul în care ei fac această afirmaţie reconosc automat faptul ca vlahii din Serbia şi din nordul Bulgariei sunt daco-români.
Dahn, Wikipedia este o enciclopedie, nu un instrument politic sârbesc, românesc sau bulgăresc. Argumentele ştiinţifice TREBUIE să aibă prioritate în calea celor politice. --Olahus 13:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manipularea unor date oficiale in functie de puncte de vedere personale, indiferent cat de intemeiate ar fi, nu este nici dorita, nici tolerata de wikipedia. Dahn 13:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bun, dar atunci hai să intruducem datele după criterii comune:
la Serbia să fie trecut astfel: 34,576 (Romanians), 40,054 Vlachs; la Bulgaria 1,088 (Romanians), 10,566 (Vlachs). Vezi în acest sens şi datele despre românii din Ucraina, Moldova şi Rusia. --Olahus 13:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oltenia

In extensp, Oltenia se refera (astazi) si la acele portiuni de peste rau care fac parte din judete oltenesti; daca tu consideri ca e necesara o mai mare exactitate (si s-ar putea sa ai dreptate), harta pe care ai facut-o arata, totusi, groaznic si arbitrar. Ce iti sugerez este sa il rogi pe User:Bogdangiusca sa-si modifice creatia ca sa arate ca tpoate celelalte harti si sa includa obiectiile tale. Dahn 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buna, si te rog sa ma scuzi pentru intarziere (am fost "backlogged"). In ceea ce priveste obiectiile tale cu privire la Oltenia, sunt de acord in cea mai mare parte - desi, asa cum am sous, as dori sa fie adaugata o mentiune in articol prin care sa se indice ca, in extenso si in mod curent (nu neaparat legitim), termenul include astazi si regiuni care nu faceau parte din Oltenia medievala (ar clarifica situatia si ar stabili ceea ce este relevant). Am exact aceleasi obiectii cu privire la asemenea utilizatori, si an special la acel utilizator - pe langa prostiile pe care le-a adaugat in tema asta, este autorul unei serii de maculatura antisemita care inca supravietuieste pe rowiki. Din fericire pentru ei, eu nu contribui la rowiki - tocmai pentru ca nu vreau sa ma leg la cap cu asemnea indivizi (daca ai dreptate cu privire la ip-uri, inseamna ca m-am intalnit deja cu el...). Dahn 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islaz

I'm just following what Turnu Măgurele article says. If you really think the redirect is wrong, you can go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and ask for it to be deleted. Don't blank the redirect, because someone may be confused if they see the blank page by clicking on Special:Random. Resurgent insurgent 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and sorry for not replying to your previous message (it seemed that we mostly agree, and I was caught up in other issues). What the 1978 dictionary says is that Islaz is a "suburban commune". At the time, I wanted to clarify approximate location, and did not bother with the details. If you think a separate article is called for (as opposed to, say, a mention in the Turnu article or a separate section there), feel free to create it from the redirect (you know how to do that, right?). In case you do, please let me know: I have some articles which would require redirects as well. Dahn 10:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Dahn 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Székely

Yes. The map of Székely Seats that existed until the end of 19th century. Except for Aranyosszék. --KIDB 05:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Now I don't have time and energy to draw a new a larger map including Aranyosszék, however I would like to. Maybe later. This map anyway provides more accurate information than the previous ones. Actually I made it after a remark of Dahn saying that most Romanians think Székely Land is East of Targu Mures. I hope it helps. I don't think it should be renamed to Székely Seats because the expression Székely Land already existed in the 19th century and meant roughly the area in my map (+Aranyosszék). And actually the enclave officially belonging to Felső-Fehér County was also discussed as part of Székely Land in contemporary literature. --KIDB 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Albania

Please stop reverting the article, there are differences between Vlachs, Aromanians, Serbs and Montenegrins. Also, please present a source for the geographical distribution of those people in the country. If you continue reverting, you will break Wikipedia:3RR and will be blocked. Mr. Neutron 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Vlachs of Serbia are Romanians

See my last edits. Thank you. --WallakTalk 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. As agreed I redirected to Romanian language.--WallakTalk 10:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is from MAE http://www.mae.ro/index.php?unde=doc&id=5730 Ro Foreign Ministry there are between 300-1.000.000 Romanians in Serbia.--WallakTalk 20:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olahus

I will ask you this: do you want to have good and reliable articles about Vlachs and Romanians in Serbia? If you do, then please read the sources that I presented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romanians_of_Serbia#.40PANONIAN:_Vlachs_in_Serbia_are_Romanians._Here_are_the_proofs After reading them, I want to hear your opinion what we should do with data presented there. Also, do you think that Vlachs are notable subject to have their own article? PANONIAN 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlachs of Serbia means Romanians from Serbia. Period. --WallakTalk 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not asked you anything. I asked the user Olahus to read the sources and say his opinion. PANONIAN 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was polite with you. You were not. Only by saying Vlachs are not Romanians you offend Romanians and you have an old milosevic attitude against minorities.--WallakTalk 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why this Romanian site claim that Vlachs are not Romanians: http://www.banatul.com/info/banat-history-romanians-in-serbia.shtml PANONIAN 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again you come up with not realiable sources? Why don't you come with official ones? :) Go and search again. Or stop it, you really proved an old milosevic attitude against minorities. --WallakTalk 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why this source is not reliable (It is Romanian source, by the way): http://www.banatul.com/info/banat-history-romanians-in-serbia.shtml PANONIAN 20:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because since it is you who wants to change the established version, you have to provide proof of your point in the form of quotations from reputable sources (rather than your speculations) which clearly say that Vlachs from Serbia are not Romanians. Take into account again that your Gov. of Serbia recognize them after 4. November 2002.--WallakTalk 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panonian, I answered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romanians_of_Serbia#.40PANONIAN:_Vlachs_in_Serbia_are_Romanians._Here_are_the_proofs --Olahus 08:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olahus, can you explain also on the talk page of PANONIAN? User Dahn, tried to translate I'm not sure if he said it correctly. --WallakTalk 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olahus, on the talk page of PANONIAN as stated above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PANONIAN#Central_Serbia I'm not sure if Dahn translated ok. --WallakTalk 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olahus, Vlachs of Serbia article should always redirect to Romanians of Serbia as it is now. PANONIAN is trying to revert it, but we'll not let him do it.--WallakTalk 12:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered on Panonian's talk page, and detailed every element that was misconstrued. I must repeat that I view the discussion you link to an infringement of WP:OR, since it dwells on personal interpretations of mostly irrelevant material. Dahn 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ar fi bine sa tii legatura cu User:Danutz



CONSILIUL NATIONAL AL RUMANILOR SI VLAHILOR

http://members3.boardhost.com/homolje/msg/1186037096.html Posted by daniel on August 2, 2007, 8:44:56


Ultima ora: A fost inregistrat Consiliul National al Rumanilor din Serbia Negotin, Timoc, Serbia/Romanian Global News

01 august 2007 Azi 01.08.2007 la sediul din Negotin al CNRS a sosit confirmarea inregistrarii Consiliului National al Rumanilor din Serbia (in limba sarba se utilizeaza sinonimul arhaic pentru roman,“vlasi”). Consiliul reprezinta comunitatea romaneasca din Timoc si are precizat in statutul sau utilizarea ca limba materna a limbii romane literare, transmite corespondentul Romanian Global News din Timoc.Necesitatea inregistrarii acestui consiliu a fost data de faptul ca romanii din Timoc (peste 250.000) au o situatie diferita de romanii din Voivodina (circa 35.000), iar obiectivele fiecareia dintre cele doua comunitati sunt diferite. Daca cei din Voivodina au avut si au scoli si biserici in limba proprie inca de pe timpul Imperiului Austro-ungar, romanii din Timoc de mai bine de 200 de ani sunt supusi unui intens si agresiv proces de asimilare care a lasat numeroase urme in mentalitatea si onomastica comunitatii si a facut ca in zona Timocului sa nu existe scoala si biserica romaneasca. Exceptia data de bisericuta de la Malainita ca si chinurile la care este supusa de autoritatile si biserica sarba, nu fac decat sa confirme politica antiromaneasca dusa in zona pana de curand. De aceea prioritatile celor doua consilii nationale romanesti difera: in Voivodina se tipareste beletristica in limba romana si se finanteaza teatre, iar in Timoc se va invata sa se scrie si sa se citeasca in romana literara (pentru ca de vorbit se vorbeste), sa se infiinteze muzee si mass-media in limba romana. Desigur necesitatea colaborarii sincere si oneste dintre cele doua consilii nationale romanesti nu poate fi pusa in discutie, cadrul acestei colaborari urmand a fi stabilit si respectat de cele doua parti. Izolarea la care a fost supusa comunitatea romaneasca din Timoc, intretinuta abil si de complicitati ale unor grupuri de interese de la Bucuresti, a fost sparta de interesul constant pe care Presedintele Basescu l-a aratat pentru zona. Dezinformarile la care demnitarii romani (oricum neinformati asupra complexitatii problematicii din Timoc) au fost supusi ani in sir de “baieti cu ochi albastri” interesati mai mult de afacerile cu sare facute impreuna cu fosti membri ai securitatii lui Milosevic decat de soarta celor aproape 300.000 de romani din Timoc, speram sa inceteze odata cu indepartarea din sistem a unora care au intretinut aceasta dezinformare. Prin recunoasterea noului consiliu national, Serbia face un pas inainte si speram sa nu fie singurul. Presedintele Tadici mai are o promisiune de respectat, o promisiune pe care partidul sau a facut-o atunci cand a avut nevoie de sprijinul Partiei Democrate a Rumanilor din Serbia ca sa castige alegerile parlamentare. Sprijinul i-a fost acordat, si in Timoc, Partidul Democrat a castigat. Acum romanii de acolo asteapta onorarea promisiunii si numirea unui prefect din partea PDRS la Bor. Deja acest lucru se intarzie destul de mult, iar semnele neonorarii promisiunii facute ar schimba radical politica PDRS fata de Partidul Democrat si cu singuranta ar avea urmari pe termen mediu si lung asupra viitoarelor alegeri si asupra viitorului zonei. Romanii au fost pacaliti de prea multe ori in 200 de ani ca sa mai creada de aici incolo in altcineva decat in ei isisi. Si atunci ar putea prelua modelul maghiar!

http://www.romaniuitati.eu/content/view/34/45/

Problems with some users

Olahus, see what happend.--Brickoceanmonth 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Olahus, the main reason why I am reverting that is a simple one: the edit removing content was vandalism, and the decision leading to it unilateral. I have looked through all the pages you mention, but they add nothing: all I could find is that a few Romanian users rely on the tone, and not even the content, of Romanian newspaper articles to interpret Serb legislation. What you have edited in on those pages, no matter how strong you feel about it, is an infringement of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it is not for wikipedia users to decide that a concept used is not factual because they "know" it is not factual.

Whenever I check the arguments o those pages, it seems that the same notion is repeated over and over again in different guises, and that the same notion is moved to different pages once it is contradicted. Especially when such a debate/revert war involves my good friend Danutz and his pet Bonaparte (with his 1,000 magic socks), I make a note of malicious edits and revert them on sight. And, no, I do not think that you yourself are a sock - not that it would matter what I think about that. I cannot, however, fail to note all the rallying that has happened on this very talk page.

My advice is to use reliable sources, make use of them in the said articles (not for deleting the said articles), allow room for both sides, and learn to live with the other view. Dahn 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

După cum am mai spus, mi se pare corect ca articolele despre regiunile istorice să cuprindă toate definiţiile date, indiferent cât de puţin tradiţionale au ajuns aceastea să fie. Am înţeles că nu eşti de acord cu extinderea termenilor, dar nu trebuie să acordăm prioritate nici unui punct de vedere. Din această perspectivă, spun că amândouă viziunile trebuie să fie indicate cititorului. Acest lucru e valabil pentru Oltenia, aşa cum e pentru Ardeal. Dahn 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have outlined this just above, in several places. Sliding back one's version into a more or less neutral text is not the way to go. Lastly, Olahus, please don't try to game the system. Dahn (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that I have clarified elsewhere that I do not answer to projections, or in any way feel accountable for what users imagine are my motivations. If we're free to speculate, however, what interests me more is preventing this project from falling in the hands of any nationalist theory or lobby group, and for any other in any way biased one. That often includes biases to which poor argumentation feels I should adhere due to provenance, and surely includes the tight group benefiting from Bonaparte's showmanship - if you catch my drift. As for the rest: I do not understand Serbian; if that quote has anything to do with what we are discussing here, and if it outlines the "Serb POV" you keep battling against, then do revisit my earlier reply, where I tell you to learn to live with the other view. Whatever it does, insofar as it refers to the language, it is not within the scope of my reversion, which had to do with the demonym you (re)introduced willy-nilly.
Will there be anything else? Dahn (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlachs

I have noticed that you edit articles about Vlachs and so I have little information for you from Croatia history. We are having Statuta Wallachorum from 1630 which is writen/declared by Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor. All data on english wiki about that is writen by me in article Serbs of Croatia and this is very bad (very little). Other data about that I do not have ...Rjecina 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O A M A T A A | msg  18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]