User talk:Anonimu/Complete Works/Tom 5 (2017)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

there's a bell curve in everything, not just in iq, but in every characteristic. certain patterns can be identified within certain populations. cognitive science is not a fairytale. ur revolution is dead. at least its ideology used to be sort of sexy, but now, not even that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cei Trei (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You're over-generalizing. It's my understanding that many of the tests intended to measure subjective characteristics of the human personality are designed with the normal distribution in mind, so it's no surprise that, given sufficient samples, the results follow that distribution. The problem is that such numeric values are only relevant at the extremes (sometimes only at one of the extremes: a very low IQ is a much better predictor than a very high IQ). Furthermore, cognitive science can perfectly explain certain characteristics shared by groups of people by using much more tangible discriminators than the "nation": level of education, access to media, wealth, etc (incidentally, such characteristics are also the ones that define social class in most non-socialist societies). And rest assured I don't support ideas based on their ability to entice sexual gratification.Anonimu (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

We go there not to date, but to support our brothers across the river. Anyway, you wanna go clubbing? I have to warn you, though: that kind of social interaction is not my forte. (I live near Piata Sudului.) xoxoxo --Cei Trei (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I remember an arrow pointing to my residence, but when it comes to walk the walk...this will be remembered (in our history) as the time when we found out that you had no balls. Grow a pair. --Cei Trei (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

While you bum around with your hodlum "brothers", a guy who doesn't even speak Romanian does a better job at enriching WP's coverage of Moldavia's foremost symbol than you've ever had. When are you going to get back to actually contributing to the encyclopaedia?Anonimu (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

you have a capitalistic heart and a socialistic mind

huh?

social capital should be shared — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cei Trei (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess you don't know.

I do.Anonimu (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It clearly, happened, it deserves its own paragraph so it is not hidden. I am respecting the MoS.

Not only that, the original text was missing a reference, which now it has. What exactly in the MoS do you think I am not respecting? Because up until now, the your revert is very subjective, while my contribution provides more value to the original text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moldovans in in Canada. Since you had some involvement with the Moldovans in in Canada redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Loopy30 (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I see you have removed the Snake Island (that I had added) from the Dobruja page. You said it doesn't seem that it is part of Dobruja, which is true, but even though it doesn't seem to be, it is. Why? Well, as I said, it was part of the city of Sulina, Romania, which is located in Dobruja. Just because the Snake Island is in Ukraine today, it doesn't mean it is not a part of Dobruja anymore. The Banat region, for example, is also divided between Romania, Serbia and Hungary. The Hungarian part is very small, yet it is considered part of Hungary and no one is against it, even though you will never hear a Hungarian saying that Banat is located in Hungary. Dobruja is the same case: Divided between 3 countries, a very small part is in Ukraine. That's the reason why I added (Snake Island only). TheBlueMapper (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You need reliable sources explicitly stating the Snake island is considered part of Dobruja. Some temporary administrative arrangement is irrelevant, and does not imply association with a historical regional (e.g. Orsova, Eselnita and Svinita are all in Mehedinti county, but are considered part of Banat, not Oltenia, as the rest of Mehedinti). Consequently, until such sources are made available, I'm going to go back to the status quo.Anonimu (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, another argument why Ukraine owns parts of Dobruja, would be that they have Danube islands, which were part of Romania, located in Dobruja. You are probably right about the Snake Island, but these other islands are part of Dobruja. http://languagesoftheworld.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Contested_Islands_between_Romania_and_Ukraine.jpg Also, the Snake Is. was also not part of Bessarabia. If it was no part of Bessarabia, it could only have been part of Dobruja, because such an island is way too small to be its own region. TheBlueMapper (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Salut, am observat ca mi-ai schimbat editarea la pagina despre Mircea Vulcaneascu. Cred ca decat sa ne schimbam reciproc editarile ar fi mai constructiv sa discutam neintelegerea si sa vedem daca putem cadea de comun acord. Eu am facut acea modificare pentru ca initial scria ca a fost un criminal de razboi. Este un fapt bine cunoscut ca in timpul regimului comunist intelectualii romani au fost in mod sistematic eliminati, una din practici fiind condamnarile bazate pe marturii false, date sub presiune sau pure inventii ale membrilor de partid. Un aesemenea exemplu de persoana condamnata pe nederept a fost Mircea Vulcanescu, iar despre perioada petrecuta de el in inchisoare si inclusiv despre moartea sa acolo, vorbeste autorul cartii pe care am citat-o. Din acest motiv am considerat ca eticheta de criminal de razboi nu i se potriveste si o persoana care stie putine pe aceasta tema (cum e probabil sa fie persoanele care vor accesa pagina scrisa in limba engleza ) si este dornica sa afle mai multe despre el ar fi indusa in eroare daca ar fi vazut pagina in forma ei originala ( inainte de a o edita eu).

Astept raspunsul tau, numai bine :)

Există o sentință judecătorească de condamnare a sa pentru crime de război. Și pe bună dreptate, doar a fost membru al unui guvern criminal care și-a măcelărit aproape o sută de mii de cetățeni și încă 200,000 civili necombatanți, pe criterii rasiale (neluând în seama zecile de mii de soldați sacrificați pentru obiectivele mașinii de război naziste). Ar fi greșit de aceea a-l alătura pe Vulcănescu unor intelectuali care au suferit condamnări exclusiv din motive politice. Având în vedere caracterul memorialistic al cărții lui Mărgineanu, precum și tendința de la începutul anilor 90 de a reabilita prin astfel de lucrări memorialistice activiști fasciști și criminali de război doar de dragul de simula o așa-zisă "rezistență la comunism", am serioase dubii în a considera acea referință ca una de încredere. Drept pentru care am atribuit această pretenție conform politicilor Wikipedia în limba engleză și am restabilit formularea inițială, care referea o colecție academică de documente referitoare la procesul lui Vulcănescu.Anonimu (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nu reusesc sa gasesc o citare pentru acea condamnare pe care o mentionezi, iar daca sursa ta este regimul comunist atunci cred ca eticheta "criminal de razboi" nu este cu nimic mai de încredere decat cea de "victima a regimului comunist". Nu cred ca opiniile personale isi au locul aici si cred ca din moment ce este destul de evident ca argumentele pe care le aduce fiecare dintre noi nu pot fi in mod obiectiv comparate pentru a determina care este mai bun, o solutie pe care o propun este sa nu lasam nici una dintre etichete in textul de deschidere in care este descris Mircea Vulcanescu, ci si eticheta de "criminal de razboi" sa fie mutata in textul principal (cu citarea sa) alaturi de cea de "victima a regimului comunist". Observ ca ai mai multa experienta decat mine in a edita asa ca te las pe tine sa faci aceasta modificare ( daca esti de acord desigur). Pana atunci, voi sterge finalul primului aliniat.

O simplă căutare pe Internet a fost suficientă pentru a descoperi o sursă de deplină încredere (președintele Institutului pentru Studierea Holocaustului în România), găzduită într-o publicație cunoscută pentru anti-comunismul militant (Revista 22). Vă atrag atenția că ceea ce exista în introducerea articol nu era o ”opinie” sau o ”etichetă”, ci un fapt cât se poate de concret, atestat juridic (spre deosebire de ”victimă a regimului comunist”, o noțiune care, deși eventual aplicabilă lui Vulcănescu prin prisma condițiilor de detenție ce i-au accelerat sfârșitul, nu are un caracter legal în cazul lui).Anonimu (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Three years ago you flagged the article which, according to you needed some improvements. However, during these three years no wikipedian has considered that your suggestion was valid enough to correct whatever you have flagged. If you are the only one to believe that you were right and nobody else is of the same opinion, I guess that the notification is not generally accepted. Besides, since the notification various corrections of the article have been made. This means that some wikipedians have looked at the article and have made the improvements they considered necessary. Regardless of this article, I consider that such isolated opinions should not be kept if nobody has considered action necessary. Sticking to your guns is counterproductive. Afil (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've seen much older tags, the fact there was nobody willing to address those problems doesn't mean they stopped existing. An equally "valid" argument would be that, since nobody found issue with the tags during these years, other Wikipedians found them accurate for the article. Moreover, after making their improvements, they still considered the tags applied and decided to keep them. So I'd say you are the one holding "isolated" opinions. Please do attempt to address issues before removing tags. Blindly removing tags is indeed very close to vandalism, since it prevents the Wikipedia community from improving articles in need.Anonimu (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Anonimu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)