User talk:Carpaticus

Welcome!

Hello, Carpaticus, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! El_C 11:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Carpaticus (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania

Just see Decree of Turda. Regards, --Vintilă Barbu (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iancu de Hunedoara

please see the last edit summaries of this article, the hungarians are erasing great sources but instead are pushing forward their hungarian propaganda with obscure sources and denieing Iancu's romanian origin.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_Hunyadi

I deleted your addition because it bassicaly says the same thing as in the other paragraph . Cheers Rezistenta (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western world

Hi,

Will you please check the article? According to the article Turkey is a part of the Western world, but not so Romania and Bulgaria.--79.116.53.253 (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania

"The Romanized Dacian inhabitants either moved into the mountains and preserved their culture or migrated southward. The area then was repopulated by peoples from the Romanized lands south of the Danube River or from the Balkans." This is disputed by Romanian and Hungarian historians, and is against the rest part of the article (library of congres), which is NPOV, reliable english source. Please, first add your ENGLISH, RELIABLE sources to prove your statements, than make changes. I will add a neutral info into the lead. (from Library of congres), please check it. Also, to keep neutrality there should be a picture showing Transylvania in Hungary too (not only in Romania). Thank youBaxter9 (talk)

Talk Archive

John Hunyadi

Thanks for your feedback, Carpaticus! It really is quite astounding how keenly fought over that thing is. As far as I can tell, it seems clear that in John's day and age the problem was not the ethnic background of his family, but much rather his lack of prestigious ancestors, especially as he and his son automatically were compared with the Luxembourgs and the Habsburgs (forcing Matthias to concoct both his "Roman" and "imperial" ancestries). In a way, the modern struggle between Romanian and Hungarian nationalists about who may claim him as theirs bears a striking resemblance to this, only on the level of nations: The way I see it, both Hungarians and Romanians feel they need a strong, autonomous ruler figure in illo tempore, as it was a time of failing prestige for both their nations in the face of Ottoman ascent. Comparable yearning for and claiming of national heroes in Germany and Switzerland has mostly abated since the war (e.g. nobody in Switzerland gets steamed up about Winkelried anymore), and has in its own turn become a subject of historical studies . So it is a real pity that the WP page on Hunyadi seems to be stuck in such a phase, especially as John was indeed a very fascinating figure. :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigaranus (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Census

Given the prevailing conditions (war, refugee exodus), the 1919/20 counts may not be the most reliable, but I thank you for adding in a source. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason why the 1910 census is prevailing, although it is said that it was manipulated by Hungarian authorities quite a lot. Carpaticus (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, because specific numbers usually require citations; and second, because Jews + Serbs + Armenians +Roma +Slovaks +Czechs +Croats probably numbered more than 0.4%. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

I guess you made 3 reverts in about 1 hour, NOT me. Squash Racket (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonaparte. Thank you. Synergy 21:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know anything about user Bonaparte and I have nothing in common with him. Just because I had written on some Romanian topics does not justify that my account is a sock puppet of Bonaparte. Carpaticus (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair blocking

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not know anything about user Bonaparte and I have nothing in common with him. Just because I had written on some Romanian topics does not justify that my account is a sock puppet of Bonaparte.

Decline reason:

Bolding your request does not magically make it more true. Behavioral and technical evidence has tied you positively to several other accounts, one of which was the Bonaparte account. It is far more than merely sharing a common interest, there are substantial stylistic similarities between the edits made by this account, and by several other accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonaparte/Archive. Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:48, 4 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.

I was blocked on possible kind of reason

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).

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

Request reason:

Regarding User:Bonaparte: In the investigation conclusions Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonaparte/Archive it is stated that Possible that these two users are Bonaparte. So my account was blocked having only a "possible" reason, based on geographic location. Is this evidence? It is impossible that my IP address be the same as Bonaparte’s, because I do not know this person. If Bonaparte is a Romanian, then, of course, he used a Romanian IP. But if there are more Romanian editors, using their Romanian IPs, writing on Romanian topics, you will suspect all of them being Bonaparte sockpuppets? This is ridiculous! Moreover I see no stylistic similarities between my edits and the Bonaparte ones. Also my contributions were most in the Transylvania, John Hunyadi, Kingdom of Hungary, Origin of Romanians topics, that were substantially different from those of Bonaparte. * Regarding User:Best4all - this account was created by a work colleague of mine in the same month as I created my account. This issue could create the false impression that we two are one user. At the very beginning he probably used his account from the same LAN as me, maybe this was the reason your technical records indicated the same IP address. But this was happening last year. I asked him and he told me that he used another Internet connection for the edits he did this year, you can easily check this. * So, in conclusion: I am accused of "possible" being Bonaparte based on stylistic and Romanian topics and also using one more account that was used a few times by a work colleague who used the same LAN last year. Last edits made on Kingdom of Hungary were done from his own Internet connection, different than mine (please check the IP addresses, they are different). I believe that this blocking is a mistake and I kindly ask you to review my case. Thank you. Carpaticus (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence presented establishes a sufficient likelihood that you are socking with respect to at least one other account. Sandstein 10:31, 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.