User talk:Olahus/Archive4

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.


The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor — From the editor: 200th issue
Features and admins
Features and admins
Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mttll

He's also at it in Middle East and Languages of Europe. Any help in dealing with this guy would be appreciated. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs

The purpose of a Dab. page is to differentiate between links. It is not intended to be an arbitrary list of homonyms. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation Reverting in the manner you did at Romani was ill-judged. Please reconsider your revert. RashersTierney (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Europe

I have undone your edit because:

  • There is no "set" definition on which countries are Latin European - only a combination of other factors.
  • Language is not the sole determining factor of whether a country is Latin European or not.
  • You keep restoring a map on the Latin Arch, not Latin Europe.
  • You removed several countries from the religion section despite them being predominently Roman Catholic - it does not matter if not all of them meet the linguistic and geographic criteria - that section is about which countries in Europe are Catholic.
  • The edits you did make which were useful - such as that about Romania/Moldova, have been edited back in.
  • Your reverts keep re-introducing statements about Vatican City being the "most Latin European" country - and this is POV.

If you wish to discuss these changes, please use the talk page. Thanks. 78.147.130.29 (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not so. Latin Europe is a region with a whole set of inherited characteristics from Latin culture - not just language. I am currently introducing sources into the article for this. If you have any to counter this, I'd be glad for you to bring them up on the talk page? Cheers 78.147.130.29 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Latin countries in Europe have a common history. They were a central part of the Roman Empire. Their populations speak languages derived from the common language of the empire, Latin. They share many other aspects of collective history. For example, they are predominantly Catholic countries..." [1] 78.147.130.29 (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the following sentence shows it clearly is not the sole defining criteria. If we start to state that Latin Europe is an entirely linguistically enstated area, we'll be falling into POV. I have no objection to following what the sources say, and indicating that language certainly seems to be one of the largest contributing factors, but we cannot exclude the other factors too. Cheers 78.147.130.29 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, Ireland is clearly explained not to be included. Malta is also mentioned uniquely in the article, stating how it does not speak a Romance language in the same way the others do, but has significant historical prescence of one (Italian), and has absorbed many features of this into the language today. Croatian is not mentioned on its own point at all however. 78.147.130.29 (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered at 04:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Harta teritoriilor româneşti

Salut,

Ce părere ai despre această hartă făcută de mine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romanian_adi.png

Scooter20 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romani infobox

You want to discontinue your disruptive edits to Romani people now. First of all, if you are unhappy with the content of the infobox, edit Template:Romani infobox, don't restore all the clutter to the main article. The move to transclude the infobox is completely unrelated to the changes in content. Then, you want to stop sabotaging my cleanup efforts. I asked you to help cleaning up the dreadful list at Romani_people_by_country#Population_by_country. I invested some time dealing with the worst, you did nothing. Once you have a solid list of populations in that list, you may argue for re-introduction of some significant populations to the infobox. Just reverting to your previous clutter isn't arguable. I don't know what motivates you to "contribute" to the topic, but you better start behaving constructively soon. I don't even know what your "pov" might be, nor do I care -- you seem to be some weird kind of Romanian patriot causing disruption at Latin Europe and elsewhere in the attempt to highlight your precious ethnicity. Your edits are clearly falling under WP:DISRUPT, and I don't have the patience to babysit the article as well as spending time cleaning up the worst bits. --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann, I answerded in your talk page. --Olahus (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

Almost every single comment is a complaint about you. Consider this your warning - one more revert at Latin Europe and this will all be brought to public focus. You do not seem to understand the way things are done on Wikipedia. If you want to bring about these controversial changes that a total of 5 editors have shown disapproval of, then discuss them on the talk page and await other users to give support, or suggest other compromises. Continuing to edit war in these changes is certainly not helping your situation. 89.243.33.170 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Mttll in Afro-Turks article

Hello. Mttll constantly removes estimates of population figures and other documented data from the article Afro-Turks, most probably as a part of his anti-Zigan and anti-African nationalistic agenda. Can you please tell me how can I report him to administrators if he keeps his certain deed? Thanks in advance. Behemoth (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also he purposefully misquotes a source for an irrelevant population figure, just like he does on the page Romani people by country. I wonder if there's a measure to prevent him from doing this. Ciao! Behemoth (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you Behemoth. Why are you conspiring against me? You didn't even let me explain myself. Go see that talk page now. I want an apology.--Mttll (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mttll, your edits are extremely nationalistic and in every edit you are only trying to glorify Turkey. --Olahus (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about you? Why are you systematically removing/ignoring low estimates about Romas in Turkey?--Mttll (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ingore/remove them. --Olahus (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scanned Images

I've really enjoyed studying the scanned images you uploaded (at your user page). Just thought I'd let you know. Can't wait to see what other gems you might locate in the future. Particularly like historic images of Tiraspol. Other regional historic photos would be wonderful, if you come across them. Keep up good work. RashersTierney (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thx. I'll see what I can find. Regards! --Olahus (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallachian plain

I don't agree with that. In Bulgaria, those are not treated together, and I see nothing wrong with describing a region of Bulgaria in a separate article. Actually, I was going to translate some stuff from the Bulgarian Wikipedia to make the Danubian Plain (Bulgaria) article more detailed. Geographically, it might be one feature, but it's not commonly associated with any plains in Romania over here. Sure, we can describe it as being the southern part of a larger plain that also covers parts of Romania, but it would be wrong to group the two under the name "Wallachian Plain". We might be talking about geographical features, but it's culture that decides names and "separateness". I see no reason we shouldn't treat them separately, it won't hurt the quality of articles in my opinion. All the best, Todor→Bozhinov 07:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted :) Seems logical that the plains are the two parts of a basin, with the river as their dividing point. Thanks for researching this and all the best, Todor→Bozhinov 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 16:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inhabitants of Isaccea, from Budjak

Do you have a reference for that? AFAIK, they came from across Moldavia, not just from Budjak; for example, an ancestor of mine moved to Isaccea from what is now Botoşani County. bogdan (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roma

The Roma of Greece do not have the same characteristics as other groups in Greece. And, by the way, the Aromanians, Arvanites and Slavophones are not considered ethnic minorities, neither by themselves nor by the rest of the Greeks (an ethnic distinction is made in other, non-Greek minds). Firstly, the Roma acknoewledge their non-Greek origins. On the contrary, the Aromanians, etc believe they have Greek ancestry. Secondly, the Roma are viewd as non-Greeks by the Greeks. In the sense that they are Greek citizens with full rights, yet citizenship does not mean ethnos, at least not in Greece... On the contrary, Aromanians, Arvanites, etc, are considered as such ethnic Greek subgroups as Cretans, Tsakonians, Sarakatsans, Cypriots, etc. Thirdly, historically speaking, the Roma were not viewed as ethnic Greeks, neither by themselves, nor the Greeks, nor the foreigners. The Souliotes were considered Greeks by their contemporary Westerners. The Aromanians in 18th-19th century Vienna, were considered Greeks, by the Austro-Hungarian authorities (Tositsas) or in Egypt (e.g. George Averoff. Lastly, as an example, the current President of Greece, Karolos Papoulias, is Aromanian. According to the Greek constitution, the president of the country must be ethnic Greek, Greek Orthodox. If the Aromanians did not consider themselves ethnic Greeks and/or were not considered as such by the rest of the Greeks, it would have become a major issue here. Apropos, the last attempt to draw an ethnic distinction concerning the Aromanians, blatantly failed... This might say something to anyone imagining similar plans and schemes... Hectorian (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about the Roma here, with the Aromanians in the back of our heads, isn't it true Olahus? Of course I am not an antiziganist, nor do I have anything against the Roma people. Yet, the real issue here are all the minorities of Greece, with your special interest about the Aromanians. I, myself, am an Aromanian, and I am sure that I do not think differently than the rest Aromanians of Greece. If you wanna have it your way in the template, all I can say is mare lucru... Practically, you won't achive anything nor will you contribute significantly in any truth for the matter. Hectorian (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny comment, with a much advertised example of a single person. You wanna have it your way? Go ahead... Afterall, it has been evident that cause of these policies of Wikipedia, people tend not to take it seriously anymore... That's why my edits are rather scarce for a long time. Thus, Wikipedia now has become the playground of people like yourself... Enjoy! Hectorian (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olahus, please stop revert-warring. You have been skirting 3RR on that template multiple times now and you are reverting against multiple other users. Also, your attempt at introducing the Roma in that list looks quite a bit like a classic WP:POINT violation (because you couldn't previously get the Aromanians out of it.) Please don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on March 2 2009 to Template:Greeks

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.
The duration of the block is 72 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Olahus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I reverted the page only for 3 times on the 2.March 2008, not 4 times. Besides, I reverted disruptive edits of some Greek racists, antiziganists and nationalists. My edits are in accordance with the discussion from the talk page of the article. See here, but mostly HERE.

Decline reason:

This shows an inability to assume good faith on your part. This does not reassure me this won't happen again if I unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2009 (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.

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).

Olahus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Excuse me, but if you follow the history of the template and the discussion, you will obviously see that Hectorian's edits are racist because he insist to include some pleople in the list (Aromanians, Meglenoromanians, Arvanites, Slaves etc) but he permanently excludes the Roma (Gipsies) though they match the same criteria like the other peoples. The exclusion of Roma (Gipsies) from the society in typical for Southestern Europe and the motivation is always racism, being based on the stereotyps toward this population. I brought SOURCES in the discussion, he didn' show any source. And this is not right.

Decline reason:

We will not tolerate personal attacks in unblock requests. You were blocked for your actions, not those of others; likewise, your unblock request should address how you intend to improve upon your own actions to prevent the issues that got you blocked from occurring again. If you are having conflicts with another editor, seeking dispute resolution is the way to go, not edit warring and calling them racist as justification. Please see WP:GAB for more information on block appeals. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:31, 3 March 2009 (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.

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).

Olahus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I know, the 3rr is broken when somebody is reverting more then 3 times the same article dunring a single day (correct me if I am wrong). The problem with those few Grekk nationalists is that they edit the article using different criterias, why I am asking for a single criteria whatever thsi criteria is. As you can see, I let them to choose the criteria, but they are breaking thier own rules, they elide their own criterias when ist comes to the Roma (Gipsies). That's absolutely not understandable for me.

Decline reason:

Checking carefully I found that you had several reverts in a two-day period but did not seem to go past 3 in any 24-hour period of that. However, you are not automatically entitled to 3 reverts per day: you may still be edit warring at a lower-rate and that is the case here. Edit warring is a serious problem. I'm sure you have points you want to make, but you need to stop reverting and focus on discussion. If you feel that you need to hear from independent users, consider dispute resolution. But do not edit-war. Mangojuicetalk 19:20, 3 March 2009 (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.

It looks to me as though you are indeed having problems understanding the rules. If you can confirm that you've read WP:3RR and WP:REVERT carefully, I can explain any questions you may have William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Olahus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked for 72 hours and not for ... 24 hours, for instance?--Olahus (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a request for unblock. Your block has now been reviewed by three independent administrators (four, now that I'm here), all of whom found it to be within Wikipedia's rules. Further requests for unblock will not be helpful, and may result in the edit-protection of this talk page. You are welcome to edit within the rules when the block expires. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:34, 5 March 2009 (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.