User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus/Archive 4

Welcome! You are currently at the archive of my talk page for the year 2022. In case you want to leave me a message, click here, and don't forget to sign it adding ~~~~.

A.P.

Hey SD, hope you're well. You've added at Aurel Plasari that he's of Aromanian origin. If Aurel Plasari was of Aromanian origin, I would be the first to support its addition but he hasn't called himself of Aromanian origin. I think that as you've seen from my editing I'm supportive of Aromanian rights and against the invisibilization of their culture under state-propagated projects. The two sources which you found about Plasari are unfortunately part of a specific trend among certain Islamic groups lands which are usually funded by Turkey or Saudi Arabia. These groups tend to attack historians who disagree with them and use the term "Vlach" as a slur. Gazeta Impakt is actually directly financed by the Turkish embassy and has a reputation for spreading conspiracy theories. In the article about Plasari, the author attacks Plasari as an "anti-Albanian Vlach" because he produced a new translation of Marin Barleti's History of Skanderbeg. The comment by Arben Llalla reproduced in Gazeta Tema is part of the same narrative. I want to remove the references to his origin from the article, but I want to firstly discuss the issue with you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maleschreiber, thanks for messaging me first about this. I am aware of your good faith when dealing with Aromanian topics, but, if I'm honest, this context seems a bit strange to me. I find it a bit strange that Saudi and Turkish-backed Albanian newspapers would invent that an historian they disagree with is Aromanian rather than just using this already existing "fact" or "rumour" against him assuming that it is in fact true (not sure if I am making myself understood), although I have zero knowledge of this so I can't speak too much about it. Leaving aside those two sources, I have been able to find a few more that refer to Plasari as an Aromanian/Vlach [1] (from 2001, before the 2016 anti-Albanian thing) [2] (this only thanks Plasari for clarifications on Aromanian topics, wouldn't serve as a source in the article but still may show he's at least related to them, if only academically). I've also seen several comments on newspapers and forums talking about him and saying he's Aromanian. And on the second of the two sources cited on Plasari's article about his supposed Aromanian ancestry [3], they refer to Plasari as Aromanian and make no further comment on that. By the way, from what I see, those anti-Albanian allegations were made by someone not related to the newspapers, Arben Llalla, another historian per here [4]. From what I see so far there is not much reason to doubt that Plasari is Aromanian, could you provide some kind of source that shows that Gazeta Impakt and Gazeta Tema have done such actions in the past or that there could be some other reason why they could be considered unreliable on Wikipedia? Maybe you might also be able to find more appropriate sources (if there are), as you speak Albanian (I assume, sorry if it is not the case). The language barrier has been the biggest obstacle I have encountered when making edits about the Aromanians on Wikipedia, so I am struggling to find more sources about this and I might have misread the two already present sources on the article and have missed something that would clearly make both sources inappropiate otherwise. Tell me if you find anything about this. And again, thanks for discussing this issue first! So far my interactions with other users when discussing Aromanians topics have been mostly (if not fully) hostile, so I appreciate it. Regards. Super Ψ Dro 22:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SD, Gazeta Tema is reproducing a comment of Llalla who called him part of a "hidden lobby". They're not endorsing his opinions. But the RFE article is RS. Plasari's father Anastas[5] was an early leftist and anti-religious writer in 30s Albania who was later put to prison for anti-Yugoslavism in early Communist Albania. When the pro-Yugoslav faction was liquidated he was released. His origin was from Voskopoja/Moscopole and he lived in Romania for a while[6]. We can replace the two articles from Tema with RFE and write more specifically that his father was of Aromanian origin from Voskopoja/Moscopole. How does that look to you? PS If you need sources about Aromanian history, you can e-mail me and I'll see what I can find in my database. --Maleschreiber (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it sounds good to me. Thanks for offering help with sources, but so far I am not focusing in writing long and detailed articles, so what I manage to find in the Internet is enough for me. My main objective is to increase the knowledge about the Aromanias in Wikipedia and mentioning them in those places where they have been forgotten (here) but where they were or are still present, and I believe having many needed pages on the Aromanians is better than having a few top-quality pages, at least for now. Again thanks for discussing the issue, I've went ahead and replaced the two sources with RFE's article. Super Ψ Dro 21:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need help for improving the page about the romanian legion italy(ww1)

you can see from my contributs that i tried to make a stub about the romanian legion in italy. the stub is a stub from https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legione_Romena_d%27Italia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I don't have much free time. I may add something in the future but I don't guarantee anything. Super Ψ Dro 21:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trianon Syndrome

Please cooperate. You have no author rights. Xx236 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply: [7]. Super Ψ Dro 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"controversial"?

I'm trying to AGF here but in what universe is this not controversial? valereee (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also please archive your user talk. It is long enough to be problematic for some users. I can help you set up auto archiving. My user talk archives after 7 days. valereee (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehh. I don't really care about this issue. I only wanted to list an ethnicity for the Kiradjieff brothers as all other entries had it but I saw the article and talk page and it appeared that ethnicity was disputed between Macedonian and Bulgarian. So based in Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia I added "Slavic Macedonian". Note that I did not refer to ethnic Macedonians, the titular ethnicity of North Macedonia, as those are simply called "Macedonians" in this website. I don't know Wikipedia's common practices in this topic area and maybe a better choice could have been made from my part (like Slavic-speaking Macedonian maybe) but I wasn't assigning a Macedonian or Bulgarian ethnicity to the brothers. And yes, I was going to archive this talk page after the year started but I forgot, thanks for reminding me. I appreciate the offer but I'd rather manually archive it myself as I want the archives to be divided in years (which I think auto archiving doesn't do). Super Ψ Dro 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drom, the fact ethnicity is disputed is absolute evidence this was a controversial edit. Your edit summary called it not controversial. People are totally going to complain about that. Ethnicity is an incredibly controversial subject. Nothing, literally NOTHING, about it is ever non-controversial. valereee (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I cannot beleive that you actually said "the Tatars are an ethnic group with a subgroup living in Crimea". There are numerous disambiguation pages, heading notes, etc to unsure that any person unfamiliar with qirimtatarlik is immediatly removed from such blatant misconception. Such claims about qirimtatarlar being part of the Tatars (ie, Kazan Tatars) go to show your deep-seated ignorance or arrogance of the subject matter here. I suggest that to avoid a block you publicly apologize and, like I have suggested MANY times, bother to read about Crimean history (special emphasis on the origin of the ethnonym and the ethnogeneis of the nation as Crimean converts to Islam which had nothing to do with the so-called Tatars). Furthermore I have to admit that I am quite concerned by the attempts of an self-admitted Romanian nationalist who blatantly exibits the most basic ignorance on another nation to exhert so much control over self-labeling and self-identification and insists on dragging out the disscussions as long as possible. I know we are supposed to assume good faith here, but you obviously should be aware of your own subject-matter knowledge deficiencies (as well as self-admitted status as a non-native English-language user), yet you really give a vibe that you are either indifferent to the need to self-educate further. Frankly I hope you are not a sockpuppet of any one of the very...colorful...personalities I have previously interacted with on Crimea matters on Russian Wikipedia. But anyway, I hope you do reconsider your behavior and finally withdraw from the discussion and finally take a chance to educate yourself to get rid of your misconceptions about Qirimtatarlar before making any further comments to contributions to Crimea related matters here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah, I've already rectified that. It really is not that much of a deal. If you believe I am going to get blocked for this misunderstanding, you can try your luck and go ahead and mention this into the report. I equally recommend reading about the English Wikipedia rules to you, that goes before anything here. I don't know much about the Crimea Tatars? Yeah, sure, I can admit this and continue on with my life. I don't need to know Crimean Tatar history to edit on Wikipedia. But you do need to know the rules of the very place in which you are participating. And the rules prove you wrong. It's also a bit amusing that you are resorting to talking only now that I've reported you, and not before when this dispute was much smaller. Why did you not explain that linguistic controversy on the template's talk page? Isn't it your work as a knowledgable user on the topic to point this out to people not familiarized with it instead of asking them to "educate themselves"? By the way, I haven't commented much on this at ANI, but your constant aggressive tone is leaving you in evidence. I will remind you you've already been threatened with a block, and that was before the report, in a random isolated template talk page. Acussing me of being a sockpuppet will only make the mind of the admin that will act on the report clearer when deciding the outcome. But, if you're unsure, you can go ahead and start a sockpuppet investigation. It sure will be a funny incident to look back to some years from now in my Wikipedia history. Super Ψ Dro 20:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It really is not that much of a deal"...again, making my jaw drop. You would know that the term Tatar vs qirimtatar is actually a really, really, really HUGE deal IF you bothered to read the articles that the template in question linked to and that I gave you a link to (specifically the one on the infamous Ukaz 493 which normalized the use of "Tatar" and status of derecognition instead of the proper ethnonym of Qirimtatarlar/Крымские татары as a distinct ethnic group). The lack of capitalization in use of the word tatar to refer to qirimtatarlar is crucial to help further differentiate from those you mistakenly thought qirimtatarlar was part of. Frankly given such dispute over the term detatarization, I'm considering renaming the article to something else entirely (something along the lines of Slavification of Crimea, cleansing of non-slavic elements in Crimea, etc) and giving the article a slightly more broad scope to go with that (accompanied by mention of the few Greek, Italian, Armenian, Roma, and other elements cleansed from Crimea in the mid 1940's)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note you do not own the article. If you move it without consensus on the talk page at this point you will be blocked and it will be moved back. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

How many Russian troops are in transnistria? Do they move through Moldova? 2600:6C48:617F:DABB:595F:F91B:CAEF:59FF (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just messaged Putin about this. He told me they are 3,000 soldiers and also gave me their full names and surnames, home addresses, family members and favorite meals. He also told me they move through Somalia. I expected Cambodia to be honest, but Putin sure is a box of surprises. Super Ψ Dro 17:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northern Maramureș, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dragomirești.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Moldavian Republic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Moldavian Republic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Moldavian Republic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thesmp (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Review for MV Millennial Spirit?

Hello, I noticed that you made several very helpful edits and links to MV Millennial Spirit. I recently submitted a DYK nomination for that article, and was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing it? If so, please let me know, it'd be a great help! Fritzmann (message me) 01:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry, but I never reviewed a DYK before, and I don't feel too motivated right now as to learn how. I'd rather leave it to someone else. Thanks for creating the article by the way. Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded for efforts in expanding multiple articles to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Super Ψ Dro 14:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

or Russian warship, go fuck yourself

I suspect that you've been waiting a long time to get the right context to put this into an edit summary. Nicely done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you're right :) Super Ψ Dro 19:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bego Turks

Why you redirected a sourced page back to Ada Kaleh? It was about the Inhabitants. This are two pages. I first created the name with Ada Kaleh-Turks but as sources said they was named Bego Turks. Ada Kaleh is the Island, and Bego Turks the page for the Inhabitants --Nalanidil (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nalanidil, Ada Kaleh was a small island with a small Turkish community. There's no reason for us to give all Turkish communities abroad their own article. The information about them can be perfectly covered either at the article about the island or at the article about the Turkish minority in Romania. The need for a separate article on the Ada Kaleh Turks is diminished by the fact that the main reason Ada Kaleh was not another irrelevant Danubian island was because of its Turkish community. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i understand what you mean, to be honest i was amazed too by the term bego turks, because seems to me an invention around the turn of the century 1899-1900. Also the one source about the alleged Turkish-Kurdish-Albanian-Arabic mix population does not seem trustworthy to me. The majority of sources in different languages write turks on ada kaleh, nothing else. Nalanidil (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus, I've converted the RfD into an AfD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bego Turks. RfD is for discussing redirects, not articles, not even ones that have been turned into redirects immediately preceding the nomination (see also this thread for what can acceptably fall within the range of this venue). – Uanfala (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question why it is not ok to have an own Article about the Turks from Ada Kaleh but from Greece, every Turkish Group have there own page have a Look: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Turks_in_Greece

You cant compare the Turks from Ada Kaleh with the Turkish-Tatarian-Muslim Roma Population from Dobruja, the History and Background is different.

We should renamed the Page in Turks from Ada Kaleh Nalanidil (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, Super Dromaeosaurus. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

You appear to be at Wikicommons once in a while and I thought to ask if you could look at the map for the 2022 Ukraine invasion by Russia. The current 'animated version' of the map seems only to go up to 24 March. Could you look at this and see it some updates are possible; its almost 2 weeks old. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have never edited svg files, and I don't have any idea of how to edit gifs. Super Ψ Dro 15:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses

Hello, Super Dromaeosaurus. You seem to be a little confused about the correct use of the {{Other uses}} template. For example, on two articles, you added {{Other uses|Vladimir Frolov{{!}}Vladimir Frolov (disambiguation)}} as a hatnote. Per WP:INTDABLINK, we actually want the link (which in this case is the part of the value before the {{!}}) to go to the redirect that contains the word "disambiguation" in the title. So really, all you needed to write in these cases was {{Other uses|Vladimir Frolov (disambiguation)}}. Hope this helps! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot! I was actually confused as to how use this and didn't know where to search about it. Your help is appreciated. Super Ψ Dro 16:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New RM needed?

For Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd support it if one was stated. Possibly it could be moved to "Ukrainian armed resistance against Nazi Germany". Super Ψ Dro 13:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mulțumesc!

Thanks for your suggestion, I'll have a look at the sources you suggested (obviously as it's Transnistria state media, it's probably not that reliable!) Fourdots2 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If what we're using them for is to cite refutations of certain claims by Transnistrian officials, I think it's okay for Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 08:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm currently adding some stuff from Russian Wikipedia about Krasnoselsky and those links will be quite useful too. Fourdots2 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your work. Super Ψ Dro 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Unfortunately some of the Transnistrian government sources seem to be difficult to access (I read something about how they are blocking access outside the territory because they're worried about hackers or something, lol) so I haven't been able to verify all the sources from the Russian article Fourdots2 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I wanted to see a giant dromaeosaurus...

"This page has been edited by Super Dromaeosaurus."

"Oh cool, I bet his user page is going to be a gigantic picture of a dromaeosaurus!"

"...oh, it's not...o...o.k.."

Fephisto (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't post pictures of myself here, for privacy reasons. Super Ψ Dro 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian song: Місто Марії (City of Mary)

Some sources:

--Txkk (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see sources have talked about this song. Sorry for the revert. But it'd be better if the Ukrainian page was expanded so that this notability is more apparent. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with you, but I don't understand Ukrainian language. --Txkk (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind then. Super Ψ Dro 08:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Voznesensk for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Voznesensk is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Voznesensk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanian National Day

Please read my replies in the talk page and correct the text.Madalinfocsa (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Yes loved this barnstar. Dolon Provas (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. But why? You didn't give me a reason and we don't seem to have coincided before. Super Ψ Dro 13:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Brazilians page

Hello, i made an article about the romanian diaspora in Brazil(Romanian Brazilians) but it got deleted without any explanation, i think it's because an article with the same name got deleted due to being too unsourced in November, i'm a bit upset because my article used sources that were used in the article about the Romania-Brazil relations and also because Romanian diaspora in Brazil doesn't have an article while most of European diaspora in Brazil does (more than 40k Brazilians have full of partial romanian ancestry). Can i remake the article or is there a problem? Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk)

Hello. I haven't read the article so I don't know what quality did it have. I'd recommend waiting to see if the admin that you messaged restores the article and then you should put some more work on the article to ensure it does not get deleted again. I think six sources and two sections in the article can make it aesthetically pleasing and make it more evident that the topic is notable (if it truly is), although this is definitively not a standard or rule, just expand the article a bit more. For now do not recreate the page until the admin responds. Super Ψ Dro 13:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i read that the admin who deleted it restored the page as a draft but i can't find it, do you know how? Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they didn't yet. They first asked you if you are okay with it. Super Ψ Dro 20:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i replied to her yesterday but she didn't respond. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a bit, admins are often busy. Still, if she hasn't replied in a few days, be aware you still have WP:RFU to recover the page. Super Ψ Dro 22:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i did it and it got restored.

Here is the draft page if you wanna take a look at it: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Romanian_Brazilians Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. From what I see, the problem this article has had are its sources. You should get rid of the Bessarabian Romanians organization's source as it isn't necessarily a reliable source. You should use academic journals or newspapers. România liberă is an ok source, you should search more of that type. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania can be used but I'd recommend not depending much on it. It's valid to use it to cite population figures. You should aim for sources that aren't directly connected to the subject (like a Brazilian Romanian association or the Romanian embassy in Brasilia), but that talk about it from an outsider position. Another thing you can do to improve this article is to go to this category [8] and list on it Brazilians with Romanian descent, but only with the respective source citing this claim. Super Ψ Dro 07:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

read desc

Super Dromaeosaurus, please let Vif122vf to see my writings, because his reverts are illegal. I won't give a reason to all my edits again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ádám Kolláth (talk • contribs) 07:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert

Don't revert my edits, here are my reasons: Wends edit:

I changed fake edited Daco-Romanist map saying "East romance peoples" in Transylvania when no source mentions them with the original picture. Here's my proof:

Original map: Https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-381f2302c1699fb9c1bc2151baa30f2c

This guy falsified the map: Https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a7b6823427a5cfce33ad9207ecfe2f5e

First Bulgarian Empire edit:

I changed the title in Muntenia from Walachia to Transalpina. The map was of the 9th century, so the region couldn't be called Walachia. The Vlachs settled in the region in the 13th century and established the Principality of Wallachia in the 14th century. A more accurate name is the Latin name Transalpina meaning "beyond the snowy (mountains[=Carpathians])".

United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia edit:

The map that showed Transylvania in a similar color to Romania when it wasn't part of it. Romania didn't yet own Transylvania, the map was only misleading.

Principality of Transylvania (1570-1711) edit:

I still didn't take out Romanian from common languages of the principality, I only took out the Romanian county names because Romanian wasn't an official language! You see that at the Saxon sees I left the German names there because German was official. Where are the Hungarian names on Romania's county map by this logic? Blacs edit:

Here are a ton of proofs for Blacs not being Vlachs: https://qr.ae/pvAFYx

Vlachs edit:

The explanation is the same as above.

Union of Bessarabia with Romania:

I changed the outdated ethnic map for another made around the time the union was. I also changed a map that shows regions of Greater Romania instead of the union to a map of the Kingdom of Romania and the Moldavian Democratic Republic.

To whoever wrote this, that map of Slavic tribes in VII-IX century is a hopelessly false and inaccurate map, as it ignores the existence of Dnieper Balts. If it gets such basics wrong, then the whole map is doubtful.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

list of romanian words of possible dacian origins

hello, since you are part of the wikiproject romania i would to know why the page about the list of romanian words of possible dacian origins has been changed to this title https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Romanian_words_of_Paleo-Balkan_origin without consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:6469:985D:14B4:7476:268E:BD69 (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lasgush Pogradeci

Is the source stating that he was born into an Albanian-Aromanian family a RS? It got reverted as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY but i don't see how that's an extraordinary claim. 151.68.253.238 (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could be more concise and talk more in depth about Pogradeci's origins. But basically only Aromanians were going to Romanian Balkan schools in the 19th-20th centuries. This can be solved by finding another source. Unfortunately, this topic area is located in the ultranationalistic Balkans, and the stateless and disorganized Aromanians are often an easy target in Wikipedia. This kind of stuff happens often. Super Ψ Dro 11:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found other sources talking about his aromanian ancestry, anyway i'm prety sure they would get removed using some typical excuse such as WP:EXTRAORDINARY or WP:OR as if not a bif part of wiki sources are original researches. 151.68.253.238 (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send them here? Super Ψ Dro 11:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics relating to enlargement of the European Union

Hello! Could you please update the information in the candidate countries section of this article to add information about Moldova and Ukraine? Thank you in advance. Uliana245 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone has already done it before me. Super Ψ Dro 07:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cătălin Tecuceanu

Hello. I already thanked you for moving the article Cătălin Tecuceanu after my help desk request. But the move has been done again. If you want to fix it please. Kasper2006 (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale of the user is nonsense. I have started a requested move. I imagine it will be successful. Super Ψ Dro 07:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I can take advantage, the same user (my friend therefore not a bad boy), made the same "bold" moving for Diego Aldo Pettorossi, albeit with a different motivation. Although I have posed the question here by pointing out that both first names should be used for World Athletics and FIDAL. Kasper2006 (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different case. It is common practice to remove the middle name of individuals unless they are particularly known with their full name (I've seen this in articles of writers) or when it's useful for disambiguation. I haven't seen proof of the first and there isn't another person in Wikipedia with the same first name and surname. So I wouldn't change anything in this case. Super Ψ Dro 08:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you of writing about me without any notification (not very friendly), especially when you wrote "the rationale of the user is nonsense", as I do contribute respecting WP:COMMONNAME since 2004, without ever any kind of issue, improving all the names of the athletes and correcting diacritics in all languages and respecting the current use of English wikipedia. I have put since 2004 the correct diacritics even in Romanian (most of the time, English speakers do not have any idea of them).--Arorae (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the language, it could have been more civil. As for the ping, I frankly didn't think of it as I am not the one who started this thread. I pinged you in the RM right when I started it. But apologies for that as well. Super Ψ Dro 08:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Asen I lead section

can you give a look at this page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ivan_Asen_I_of_Bulgaria? There are some problems with the lead section. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the dispute was solved. Super Ψ Dro 23:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karadjova

Karacaovalılar in Turkish or Karadjovalides in Greek derives from the word Karadjova, and not from the word Moglen. The meaning of Karacaovalılar and Karadjovalides is, People from Karadjova, if you read the whole article you will see http://promacedonia.org/en/av/av_10_2.htm Nalanidil (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but Meglen should be kept somewhere. I've rewritten that part of the article. Super Ψ Dro 17:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor trying to ban an authorfrom Wikipedia

Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus, sorry to bother you, I would like to ask you about an ongoing issue. User @SilentResident has recently expressed his intention to ban Dr. Pellumb Xhufi from wikipedia (ex: [9]). Xhufi of course is a member of the Albanian Academy of Sciences and has published dozens of widely cited peer-reviewed articles and books (ex: Xhufi's book which SilentResident deems not reliable enough for wikipedia has been cited over 10 times in this Cambridge University Press academic journal[10]). But I am not asking for your help to assess Xhufi's reliability but because as far as I know, only websites or other publications can be determined as unreliable for Wikipedia, not authors themselves. SilentResident and two other editors have been removing citations from the book I mentioned solely on the pretext that the book was written by Xhufi, not even considering the content itself. And now SilentResident is threatening to ban Dr. Xhufi altogether, in my view, in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Could you please help with these two issues (removal of content only based on author & attempt to ban author)? Çerçok (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've read the discussions to know what it all was about. If SilentResident desires to start a report or something to see if Xhufi should be used, she can go ahead. I see no point in intervining before this happens. Alltan said Xhufi has already passed two of these reports. There shouldn't be any problem. Regarding the reverts, I'd ask the users to stop until such a report is actually made. But I personally wouldn't put much effort precisely because the report is going to be made anyway. Also the notification of SilentResident of the situation to an admin was an unnecessary escalation and a bad-faithed move in my opinion. Super Ψ Dro 22:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for the report as well then. Thank you for taking the time to read everything. Çerçok (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Çerçok, you shouldn't worry about the RM in the case Xhufi is removed. In the hypothetical scenario where Wikipedia acknowledges my concerns about the far-right politican and concludes that it is not good to rely upon them for information, will change nothing about the RM. In fact, I don't believe Xhufi's fate is detrimental to the RM - which, mind you, has my support even though I oppose Xhufi. Because this weekend I have checked the other sources and they seemed fine and I am happy to tell you that they do meet Wikipedia's criteria. Their authors are well-respected in the international academic community. Your RM will conclude positively. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus, I will pretend I didn't read it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xhufi uses strong polemics against all minorities residing in Albania. About the Aromanian people he often declared that they are of Albanian origin while stating that Moscopole was purely Albanian. I don't believe that such declarations deserve a place in this project.Alexikoua (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If such is the case, this should be included in the incoming report. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look if you have time

Hi. Should you have time, please have a look at Visarion Puiu. You've helped in the past and I've always appreciated your input. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will in the next few days. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you too for creating the article on the Western European Romanian Orthodox diocese, I am under its jurisdiction. I will ping you once I read the article. Super Ψ Dro 18:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About that: right now Romanian Orthodox Diocese of Western Europe redirects to Romanian Orthodox Metropolis of Western and Southern Europe which was my intention all along. The historical diocese was raised to archdiocese and a metropolis was created. However, after giving it more thought, I think we should create a page titled Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese of Western Europe with "Diocese" redirecting to "Archdiocese" and "Archdiocese temporarily redirecting to "Metroplis". This last redirect could in time disappear as content is added. What is your feeling on this? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even though the Metropolis would come from the diocese (if I've gotten it right), the average reader might not know this and they could make a search thinking of one page while being taken to another. I think it's a good change. Super Ψ Dro 15:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RM at Talk:Russian separatist forces in Donbas

Hello, Super Dromaeosaurus, sorry to bother you. I'm contacting you because I can see that you are an experienced editor who !voted "support" in the RM I filed at Talk:Russian separatist forces in Donbas. I'm having doubts about the closure, and I'd like to have your views on whether it is fair or deserves a review. I've started a conversation with the closer, here, but I'm afraid it's not going anywhere. I have no experience of RM on en.wiki and I feel I'm not in the position to assess it properly - it may well be that that closure is impeccable. However, 14 supported the RM, 7 opposed it, and I believe our argument were stronger. What do you think? Thanks for the advice, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might take a look, but I don't guarantee it due to less free time lately. Super Ψ Dro 20:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I don't want to bother you though, so if you're too busy elsewhere, or simply not interested, please don't worry. I felt I need some feedback about this issue from editors who have more experience with RM than myself - and I have no experience at all. I think I'm going to ask the same question to an admin, as basically it's their job to help newcomers get in touch with the rules and standards of the community. So if you have time and interest, please check the RM, but if you don't, it's absolutely fine and thank you anyway. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Super Dromaeosaurus, I just wanted to tell you that I asked Dennis Brown the same feedback I asked you, he replied here and I've decided that I won't ask for a review of the closure but will probably file a new RM in three months. Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry for not having replied to your second comment! It slipped my mind. I will probably check that RM out. Thanks for your comprehension and patience. Super Ψ Dro 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bosnian irredentism

The article Bosnian irredentism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It is UNDUE and likely based on POV. It lacks sources, while three included never discuss "Bosnian irredentism" as established, recognized phenomenon in political discourse, social studies, history studies, etc. It is completely invented by editor who created it (and it was created just recently, which in itself signals undue and pov; being under Balkan scope where so many articles on this topic is created and squabbled upon, it would need a true miracle this one to escape creation for so long).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bosnian irredentism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bosnian irredentism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian irredentism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I have created my first article; Leusë is the village of my grandfathers. It is my first attempt here and your help will very much appreciated.FataMandra (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FataMandra, I've done several formatting fixes, but the article was well-researched, well done. If you need any help, you're free to come here and leave me a message. By the way, I have a question. Do you speak Aromanian? Would you know what would the Aromanian name of the "Aromanian question" be? Super Ψ Dro 21:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin#A mountain out of molehill? and Talk:Cyber Anakin#Starting_over

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill? and Talk:Cyber Anakin#Starting_over. 82.209.219.61 (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

While you are entitled to dislike Greece as much as you want, this comment [11] is clearly over the line. Completely unacceptable. I do not like to issue threats, but we both know what will happen if there is a repeat. It would also be advisable for you to not inflame discussions where you do not seem to have anything meaningful to contribute. Khirurg (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you reported SD for that comment, no admin would use it to justify sanctions on a long-term editor. Saying "while you are entitled to dislike Greece as much as you want" to a fellow editor is not a suitable way to express your concerns. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for indeed having entered into a discussion I hadn't participated in before like that, but to somehow imply that Greece's minority rights are superior to Albania's is something outrageous and I didn't want it to go unnoticed. And the big claim from the opening sentence of your comment tells me a lot about your perception of comments contrary to the reality you believe in. Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I have been asked to coordinate discussion of the issue of the reliability as a source as Pellumb Xhufi. You are one of the editors who has either used Xhufi as a source or expressed a concern about the use of Xhufi as a source. The place for the discussion is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. Your participation is not required but is encouraged, and may be the best way to have your opinion considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus, I hope you are doing well. I noticed the discussion of the personal attacks by Othon was recently deleted, see here:[12]. Does this mean no measures were taken against him? Seems strange considering I received a temporary ban for much less. Çerçok (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Çerçok. If the thread was archived, then the report is over. I do not know myself if this user deserved some kind of sanction, but if such was the case, the huge text walls that both reports achieved must not have been too appealing for any admins to come and attempt to understand the situation. So that would be something to remember for future disputes. Not that you particularly were to blame for this, I am talking in general. Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I only posted about 3-4 lines in total. That is extremely disappointing, but thank you for clarifying everything. Çerçok (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source @ Zadní kopanina

Hi. Why did you revert it, the source is the same, the link that's already there has 2021 data. Jakub.mach (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it would include 2021 date. Apologies. Super Ψ Dro 13:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Romanian Republic of Moldova" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Romanian Republic of Moldova and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Romanian Republic of Moldova until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated Central Bessarabia - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Central Bessarabia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Daco-Romania" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Daco-Romania and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 9#Daco-Romania until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bucharest Nine"

I've reverted your change to Bucharest Nine; many sources use the wording "the Bucharest Nine", "the Bucharest Nine group", "the B9" and so on, as a simple web search will show. This is unsuprising because this is the normal English grammatical convention for this kind of entity.

Just a few examples:

Note that headlines that start with "Bucharest Nine" are eliding the word "the", a standard journalese practice; for example, as in "Queen Dies" or "President Makes Decree".

If you disagree, would you like to take this to the article talk page, please? — The Anome (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome, thinking it twice, sure, let's keep the change. Sorry for the revert. Super Ψ Dro 09:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory of Durrës

Hi there SD, hope you are doing well. I wonder what makes this one Albanian. Any thoughts about his ethnicity?Alexikoua (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexikoua. Sources will have to be brought to prove the Albanian ethnicity of someone from a non-Albanian locality, you can act upon the lack of them and remove it for now or perhaps open a thread on the talk page. Though I am not sure someone from Moscopole would be named "of Durrës". Super Ψ Dro 08:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per this source, [13] It is thought that Gregory of Durrës, as a budding Orthodox scholar, arrived in Voskopoja (Moschopolis) by 1730 at the latest. He was not a Moscopolean apparently. Super Ψ Dro 08:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huxit

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus! Can I ask why did you delete the quote?^[1] It tells everything about Euroscepticism in Hungary. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article is short, and Volner does not appear to be too relevant in Hungarian politics as a whole. Because of this I wanted the information on his party to occupy an amount on information similar to the rest. Otherwise it would be WP:UNDUE in my opinion. So I made it shorter and included only the main info from the reference. I also saw that there were many quotes in the cited reference, and I wasn't convinced that the one you added in particular was more appropriate than the rest. Super Ψ Dro 15:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hungarian withdrawal from the European Union

Transnistria edits to the infobox

I want you to discuss the infobox situation on Talk:Transnistria. I changed it to reflect the status of the occupied territory of Moldova. -184.148.109.174 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snide comment in RfC

I don't understand why you felt the need to make the comments you did here. Despite how ″ridiculous″ you might find something, it's unnecessary to make such comments when the content dispute is being appropriately handled. If you would actually read the thread, you would find it stems from the WP:MOS. It does zero positive for the discussion, especially when you don't offer any argument of your own other than ″yes″. TylerBurden (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the wide consensus and current state of affairs in Wikipedia articles on countries is that other countries mentioned on the lead of a country's article are linked. How could it be otherwise? It's a geographical article about a country itself, not about a completely unrelated topic. The outcome was predictable, specially when your rationale was arbitrary (or "nitpicking" to cite another user's words) as some countries were linked while some were not. And indeed most people except one rejected your proposal.

Personally, I would be quite annoyed if I had to go through a whole RfC just over a link. Mostly because I've already had to, and it was annoying. I don't appreciate it when editors waste the time of other editors over trivial issues.

And I did read the whole thread. My stance stays the same. It is worth noting that another user did use the word "ridiculous" too before me. Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could have added this rationale for the link there instead of the snark you did add, along with simply another yes. An RfC is a pretty standard thing when there is disagreement, despite how miniscule you think the dispute itself is, it's certainly better than edit warring or throwing shade. No one on that talk page has offered me an explanation of how a link to the entire country of Russia, a country almost every reader will know, is somehow more appropriate than a link to the border which is within the actual context. The only argument seems to be ″the other countries are linked″ (because they are not major examples you can assume everyone will know) or even worse, ″yes, ridiculous″.

It's worth noting you followed the poor example of another editor, who also later prematurely added the link again, I don't see why you think that's a good thing. Being uncivil for no reason I reckon causes more time wastage and ANI threads than an RfC about the MOS. The RfC will go the way it goes, I'm not a dictator and a link is not the end of the world. Which is why I don't see why you need to be uncivil about it. Either way, that's all. Maybe keep in mind WP:CIVIL next time you want to weigh in because snark accomplishes nothing. TylerBurden (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were a long-standing editor by your behavior and was surprised to find out you joined Wikipedia in 2021. I found it strange that a long-standing editor would not have been able to identify through their experience that this RfC was probably going to be overwhelmingly rejected but I made a wrong assumption, so I will apologize if my comments may have been uncivil. This assumption did influence the way I wished to respond. Super Ψ Dro 20:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, I accept it of course and can see why you would feel irritated in a way if that's the assumption you made. Water under the bridge. TylerBurden (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Replying to every post that disagrees with what you want, you are heading towards wp:bludgeon territory. You have made your points, now let others make theirs. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Super Ψ Dro 15:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts

Man these guys really love limited infoboxs huh? Thanks for all your time and efforts to try and improve things :) BogLogs (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your efforts too! Your argumentation was far stronger than mine. I would have expected your and Entropyandvodka's (pinging as a chance to thank them as well) participation to have been the reasons for the success of the RfC in the case that it had been successful. I have no doubt that this discussion (hopefully this time without all the problems my attempt had) will once again be reopened in the future, an IP user already opened a new thread in the talk page. I hope to find you again on the same side when such time comes. Super Ψ Dro 14:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, thanks to both of you. I'm not convinced it's a lost cause, partly because reality, objectiveness and honesty are on our side, but also because the possibility of a discussion of inclusion criteria is still there. Force them to articulate an inclusion criteria in the abstract (which by most of their arguments requires special exceptions or just blatant violations of NPOV) and I think we could have an honest infobox in the bag. If the RfC is refocused on that, or there's another discussion or RfC about it, I'll be there. It could be a good idea in the meantime to dispute the neutrality of the article. entropyandvodka | talk 20:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it does have to be discussed with a specific change in mind (rather than ironing out a criteria), I would suggest a future discussion/proposal specifically about adding the United States under supported by. There are at least two sources that can be cited, and Cinderella will make the WP:EXCEPTIONAL objection, but that could be countered with the fact that it would be under a supported by section. Maybe that same discussion could also force a discussion of specific criteria and cut through the shifting and double standards. entropyandvodka | talk 20:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too entropyandvodka for articulating it far better than I could have either :) BogLogs (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the United States only was a compromise I believed could work but wasn't really that discussed. I think we should aim for perfection at the definitive RfC, and after three we really should make sure the fourth is the definitive one. I think the proposal of inclusion criteria should be the next focus, though honestly I don't know what should that criteria be, as I was all up for individual discussion of countries.

And yes, it's not a lost cause. By say 2024 the countries will definitively be there, maybe they will have been added in November 2022, January 2023, June 2023, etc.... Still I would prefer to wait before a new discussion. The Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives changed the discussion of the war on sources (they even talked of a new third phase, and how Western weapons were part of its start) and the inevitable recovery of Kherson should give us further evidence to back the importance of Western weapons. I am expecting that losing Kherson would be a domino effect for the south so it would be an event of great importance. I am not entirely opposed to disputing the neutrality of the article as I understand the point of such action, but it is likely to start more long debating as some users will object to this, and I prefer to reserve my energy to something more directly productive. We could use the time meanwhile to iron out proposed inclusion criteria. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here was my proposed criteria:

1. Any belligerent fitting the de jure definition should be listed in the main section. This includes states that participate directly in armed hostilities.

2. Any belligerent, co-belligerent, state or group that significantly participates indirectly in hostilities should be listed in the "Supported by" subcategory.

3. Direct participation in hostilities includes carrying out acts of violence against an adversary.

4. Indirect participation in hostilities includes carrying out operational, logistical, or intelligence functions that are integrated into military operations conducted by an existing belligerent, or supplying an existing belligerent with operational, logistical, intelligence, or materiel assistance that directly contributes to the supported party’s overall military effort in the conflict.

Sources were in the RfC. It didn't get any replies, but I'd anticipate the most pushback would be over listing materiel assistance in point 4. Even without the arms support, the United States would still be a slam dunk for inclusion given its intelligence sharing being directly integrated into hostilities. Generally, this criteria should satisfy all the objections being made about the legal definition of a belligerent, while also offering a clear criteria for the legally agnostic category of "Supported by".

On an article talk page related to this topic, I supplied 13 sources calling this conflict a proxy war. It seems like another common sense point that if the conflict is widely, even if debatably, considered a proxy war between the United States/NATO and Russia, that should further cement their place in a "Supported by" subcategory. entropyandvodka | talk 21:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan // (Romanian)

Regarding your remark on Romanian, agree; yet, when I started, years ago, articles on settlements, this was not a standard, as I recall; another problem is that at some time all the addresses were changed from http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT... to http://db.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT..., meaning that no URI with 'database' in the beginning is valid; besides that, almost all of the queries give slightly different number for population (from these published e.g. in ukwi, ruwi...) ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 14:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had started with the 2022 invasion, a time in which I'd say that standard existed already. I understand then, many thanks for your creation of articles. Super Ψ Dro 16:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rivne bombing

i have made another draft on the bombing of rivne (Draft:2022 Rivne missile strikes), because when you moved the article back to draftspace, the submit stuff broke.

my reasoning for making the article: rivne does indeed have strategic importance, not only is it the capital of rivne oblast, it also produces a lot of energy (it has a lot of power plants, reason for it being hit by strikes in the October–November 2022 nationwide missile strikes on Ukraine).

in addition, we have other articles covering similar bombings, like for ivano-frankivsk, zhytomyr, lviv, etc, all of those also had strategic importance, i am not creating articles small missile strikes on random cities, i am creating articles with enough coverage and content on strikes with actual strategic importance.

SnoopyBird (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with having a bombing article for a whole oblast. Though let's see if it passes the submission. Super Ψ Dro 21:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did pass, also, like i said, if we are going to draftify my article, we might as well do the same for the others mentioned above. SnoopyBird (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article is the only one that is oblast-wide. But whatever. Super Ψ Dro 14:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't oblast-wide, its only about bombings in the city and region, odessa bombing article also mentions bombings of nearby villages.SnoopyBird (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makiivka surrender incident

I apologise for having misunderstood your comment. I must have been tired and I read only the first half of your comment ("is not a bad suggestion") and not the second half where you raise an objection ("but if there was perfidy, was there any actual surrender?"). If you want me to undo my page move, I'll do it straightaway. Sorry about that. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I later said I didn't explicitly express support. Though I will now, just for the record. I do support it, I just wanted to say it and leave that comment just in case someone in the future could try to use this situation to oppose the new title. Super Ψ Dro 14:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN

You should not have "fixed" redirects after your merger. Srnec (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fix links to redirects, but to a new disambiguation page. Super Ψ Dro 16:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hungarian withdrawal from the European Union

[1]