User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus/Archive 2

Welcome! You are currently at the archive of my talk page for the years 2019 and 2020. In case you want to leave me a message, click here, and don't forget to sign up adding ~~~~.

Looking at the

]

Thanks for protecting the page! I'll keep these tips in mind next time. Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Маrsupipterinae. Since you had some involvement with the Маrsupipterinae redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Мarsupipterinae. Since you had some involvement with the Мarsupipterinae redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Onychopterella has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 14:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations with your successful FAC! I just saw you were taking a break, and blanked some info on Alkenopterus in your sandbox (yes, I checked it out once in a while to see what article would be next), I wonder if the text should be added in the article so it doesn't get lost in the meantime? FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, it's a good idea, now it's in the article. Super Ψ Dro 19:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Chasmataspidid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Order

Subcapitulum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Morphology

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the

, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know! Super Ψ Dro 10:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

You are recipient no.

]

Thank you! Super Ψ Dro 14:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it's been a few months since you asked me but I think I can finally present a satisfactory answer as to the origins of the Romanian Paleologu family and why they carried the last name of the old emperors; as per Donald M. Nicol's 1992 book The Immortal Emperor: The life and legend of Constantine Palaiologos, last Emperor of the Romans, which in its final chapters goes through multiple claimants to the old Palaiologos name in the centuries following Byzantium's fall, the Romanian Paleologu (and Palaiologoi in France and Malta descended from them) were genuine descendants of Greek people with the last name Palaiologos. Although several of the Paleologu apparently claimed to be descendants of Theodore II Palaiologos, Despot of the Morea and son of Emperor Manuel II, their actual descent can at most be traced to members of the Orthodox community in Constantinople being entrusted with governing positions in Wallachia and Moldavia by the Ottomans in the 18th century. Their ancestors, 18th century aristocrats in Constantinople with the last name Palaiologos, can't be proven to be descended from the emperors (as the family name was widespread in Byzantine times, not restricted to the ruling dynasty). The Paleologu thus are "true" Palaiologoi, but can't be proven to be of the imperial branch of the family.

That's not to say that "imperial blood" doesn't survive in Romania; the Palaiologoi were not the only Greek aristocrats sent there, some (which fared much better) with the last name Kantakouzenos were apparently (though some dispute exists) genuine descendants of Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos, who briefly usurped power from the Palaiologos dynasty in the 14th century. Their descendants survive to this day as the Cantacuzino family. I don't know if you're still interested in this or looking into it (you might have known all this already), but I thought I'd let you know what I found. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard something about the Cantacuzino family before but I did not know that they descended (most likely) from Byzantine emperors! Thanks for the aclaration about the Paleologu, I find this very interesting. Oh, and just in case you didn't know, I think those Constantinopolites who ruled Wallachia and Moldova you mentioned were called Phanariots. Super Ψ Dro 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they'd be Phanariots! Of course, the Kantakouzenos descent isn't 100 % certain either but as far as I understand it, it is significantly better substantiated than the Palaiologos one (and is featured in the family tree in the

Angeloi and Palaiologoi as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Not gonna lie, the Byzantine genealogical families seem confusing, but it's still cool to know that in Romania we have descendants of Roman emperors! Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Centenary March, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entente (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forfarella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posterior (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It states at the top of the edit page:

"Each addition now requires a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it. Simply providing a wikilink is not sufficient and additions without direct sources will be removed."

You have now provided a source, so that's all fine. I only found out about this when I added something to one of these pages and had it reverted - only then did I read about the need for a citation. Mikenorton (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read it at first either, so thanks for making me notice it. Super Ψ Dro 16:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article

]

Treaty of Bucharest (1918) and the compensation

Central Powers made a territorial compensation for Romania in the Treaty of Bucharest (1918), they granted Bessarabia to Romania. It doesn't matter that there was an earlier treaty about Bessarabia, because from the Central Power's viewpoint (and that was the only viewpoint of that treaty) this was the granted compensation for Romania.--Liltender (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That information can be added again if it is specified that it was the Central Powers' view, I have no problem with that. But I repeat, Bessarabia was not granted to Romania by them, Romania occupied and united with the region some months earlier. The Central Powers only recognized this unification. Super Ψ Dro 20:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australia–Romania relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commercial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Borchgrevinkium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Borchgrevinkium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

]

The article

]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forfarella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Type locality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roman Dacia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roman Dacia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, pleased to make your acquaintance. I know that these links are entirely valid and not harmful. My revert is equally not harmful. All those external pages are now on archive and they can be linked whenever we please. There is no need for them just yet. The newspaper links stay alive for 5-10 years. Right now, the archive links add clutter to the page and make the editing harder. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right about that, but I don't think the best option is to just remove the archived links. Also, your revert removed other changes like the ones made in the format of the 40th reference or those made by the bot that edited later. Super Ψ Dro 20:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the clutter is the bigger evil while the article is undergoing active development. Bots can always be run whenver we please. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will change much when editing. The maps cover much more screen than the archive links. But I don't really have a problem with them being removed as long as the useful changes are kept. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Second Battle of Oituz. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 26#Second Battle of Oituz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The Banner talk 09:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oituz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Oituz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide

]

Hello, I'm going on vacation until Sunday, so I won't be able to search any sources at the moment. Super Ψ Dro 10:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko:, I have removed the part that says the diocese was established by an agreement with the Serbian Orthodox Church, I think it is better than adding a source for an article that is largely unreferenced anyways. Also, if I added a source, it could look like if it was used for the whole lead. --Super Ψ Dro 10:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you look on the current edits and on the talk, especially on that parts I was contested? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, the page is now on my watchlist. Super Ψ Dro 09:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are two almost duplicate items. According to the [[2]], this city does not exist and this one does.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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. --KajenCAT (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KajenCAT: that link leads nowhere. Super Ψ Dro 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Check now [[3]] --KajenCAT (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KajenCAT: I don't understand what does that prove. I have searched sources and found news relating Guélengdeng with other cities/towns (Bongor, Moussoro and N'Djamena, [4][5]). I couldn't find a census, but the only source of the article of Guélengdeng ([6], which mentions the city) says that it bases its information on a census. Super Ψ Dro 16:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: This is the problem. It does not exist anywhere except in those articles that have been copied from this articl. I have not found such a city anywhere else (neither in official censuses nor in other pages on the sites of Chad), so it indicates that it can be said either way (and thus merge both) or it was most likely due to human error that made a snowball effect. For this last reason I propose to eliminate it to avoid further confusion KajenCAT (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KajenCAT: I have googled Guélengdeng and noticed how few results it has compared to other Chadian cities, and I could not find much saying it is a city. However, I would like to be sure... could you pass me the censuses that you seem to have checked? Super Ψ Dro 12:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will NOT accept you insult to my children. I will NOT FORGIVE IT!!! My children are not yet born but I am already very proud of them! They will all be good Christians and proud Magyar Patriots! What kind of children will YOU have? You must be one of those despicable "multi-cultural" people. You would allow your daughters to have sex with anyone, with Islamic enemies of Europe or with black immigrants from the African swamps or even with one of the Jewish servants of the Antichrist who have murdered Our Lord Jesus Christ! Yes, even with one of them! People like you have no shame, you have forgotten the lessons of two thousand years of Christianity! What children will you have? What grandchildren? Mongrels! Islamic Terrorists! Or even servants of the monstrous Elders of Zion, accomplices in the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and destroy all decency! These are the shameful children and grandchildren which people like you will have! And YOU presume to pity ME? I pity you but I also despise and contempt you and all your Leftist Cosmopolitan friends! Ferenc Viktor Szabo (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC) On the Glorious Day when the New Hungarian Army will march to Liberate Transylvania and the other territories which were stolen from us in Trianon and to assert the Rightful Leading Position of Our Hungarian Fatherland and the Glorious Magyar People at the Forefront of Humanity, I can be sure that my Patriotic Magyar Sons will be the forefront! And if one of them will happen to die as a Magyar Hero, I will grieve deeply but will also be immensely proud! And where will you and your shameful children and grandchildren be on that Glorious Day? You will go down under the feet of our Magyar heroes!!!Ferenc Viktor Szabo (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

]

Jassy–Kishinev Offensive

Hello. I see that

]

Certes, yeah sure. Initially I thought about fixing all the links myself, but it is crazy that one person changes all of them. My idea was to leave the links and wait for several users to change them little by little, I did not expect that only one user would try to do the entire task. I will start tomorrow.

As a side note, I do not intend to reject or insult your help or recriminate anything, but I would prefer it to be specified that the offensive is the second one in the prose, the title move is a recent change and I would like it to become more general in Wikipedia and to make readers more aware of the differentiation of both offensives, which practically did not exist here on Wikipedia until now since almost all mentions to either of the two offensives were to the second. I am saying this for edits like this one in which you changed the link but not the shown text. Super Ψ Dro 23:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working through Disambiguation pages with links. It's a cross-topic report and I'm not a military historian or expert on the other pages listed. I just retarget the link to the right page where it's obvious or easily researched and ask for expert help where it isn't. I don't think that a page move should directly affect the displayed text, though sometimes it should be improved for other reasons. For that reason, I rarely change the displayed text, just the link, piping where necessary (or unpiping, as here). All but one of the links I fixed were for the second offensive, which seems to be widely referred to as "the" offensive as if the May/June attempt hadn't existed. It would be good to spread the work over several subject experts, but it can take a while for them to notice the problem, during which time hundreds of links still lead to the dab. We've discussed this in the past at

resolved that it's best to fix the links as soon as possible. Certes (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

That's fair enough. Thanks for your reply. I will start changing some links. Super Ψ Dro 16:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

]

The article

]

The article Forfarella you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forfarella for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Union of Bulgaria and Romania you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Union of Bulgaria and Romania for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Greetings

While working on

. Frankly I am not sure I can spare enough time alone for this particular article since I am focused on related larger scope project of Women , conflicts and conflict zones, So..

1) I am looking for volunteering support in expansion and update of

Draft:Georgius of Hungary’s Tractatus

if the topic interests you and if you are unable to spare time for some reason may be you can help out by referring the article to others for expansion.

2) If you happen to come across any information on Ottoman women slavery by any chance at any point of time please do support

Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları

by updating the same.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, lately I'm a bit busy and I've already scheduled the time I will spend on Wikipedia these few days, so I'm afraid I can't help a lot. I can say though that I would recommend moving the draft from "Georgius of Hungary’s Tractatus" to "George of Hungary". I've searched a bit about him and, from what I have seen, he apparently was a notable enough person to have an article here, but I doubt that his work is that notable. Also, he is more commonly called George of Hungary than Georgius of Hungary (you can check this on Google Scholar), so use the first name. It also turns out that he was not an ethnic Romanian, but either a German or a Hungarian; I have added a bit of info about this. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, I have taken those in to account. regards Bookku (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi,

regarding you recent edit, it's a bit problematic, since every inhabitant of Germany cannot be considered German, since many Hungarian, Romanian, etc. other citizens living and working there, without German citizenship. The editor before you made modifications with good faith, however, maybe not so careful. I suggest you to modify to "any person inhabiting" -> German citizens (linking to German citizenship - this was the original intent), as well you may completely rewrite the user's addition ([7]) suffering from serious grammatical mistakes, on the other hand using redundant and repetitive wordage...

Hoever, in the current form, the lead is grammatically and logically failed, so I propose the repair like this e.g. (highlighted modified/missing parts):

"......urope, or denote German citizens, or native speakers of the German language, or who share a common German ancestry".

The ancestry has to be added since the infobox table lists German offsprings all around the world, etc., btw. it was part of the last stable version.

(disclaimer: if you disagree, please rollback the page to status quo ante, which I reset, since none of the current additions have consensus, however with your repairs we may tend to that direction)

Thanks for you time!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry about that, I didn't know that there was such a huge discussion about that taking place. I have edited the article again, I think this new version I published is better, but I have not read much about the discussion so it is possible that it is also controversial. Super Ψ Dro 15:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super, you were just nomen est omen :-) (KIENGIR (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Union of Bulgaria and Romania has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Please read through it very carefully to be sure that I have not introduced any errors with my edits. In a number of places the language was unclear and I believe should have been clarified before the article was awarded GA status. I may have misinterpreted what I read. I happen to disagree with several of the suggested over linked terms made by the reviewer, but I have gone through the article an removed quite a few I do feel are unnecessary. (This can be awfully subjective depending on the individual reviewer.) I also wondered about the Northwest controversy. Is this construction worker someone of note? If not, it's difficult to believe his opinion caused such a fuss! You might want to consider trimming it. I would suggest you place the section before the Comparison section, though, so it seems less like an afterthought. Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have finished reading all the changes you made. I have restored or changed some I did not agree with, but I appreciate your help. Something I'm a bit worried about is the removal of many connectors such as "later" and "furthermore". In some cases it was justified, but I think the text has gotten a bit loose in other cases. I intend to do a more extensive reading later and maybe I change my mind once I've read everything though. I also see that the Bulgarian northwest controversy subsection is somewhat problematic, I think it is better to wait for the FA review to find what to do with it. And no, the person who proposed it does not seem to be very notable, but his words had quite an impact. I feel that instead of because of geniune interest, Bulgarian media just spread this to get views while Romanian media published this because of the enthusiasm of the possibility of getting more lands (and also to get views). These news were forgotten anyways a few days later. Anyway, thanks for your help! Super Ψ Dro 13:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am receiving discrimination and racism from an Aromanian Nationalist. Wikipedia is neutral and impartial and it should remain as it is. The user is known as MacedoRoman. This user does not allow me to add an Aromanian website in the Albanian language that is Pro-Romanian (Romanian - Aromanian: Aromanians that support that they are Romanians, they have Romanian national feelings). The Website is known as Arumun.com. Its main languages are Albanian and Romanian with support for articles in Aromanian. It is a very useful website for us Aromanians and it increases our ties with Romania, the motherland of our language (if I am not mistaken). I want the user mentioned above to stop removing Arumun.com and respect democracy as it is expressed from the European Union and the United States with freedom of Expression and Ideas between people's and countries. Do you kind sir have the ability to that or help me report him to the administrators of Wikipedia? Thank you in advance and I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Bolt Escargot (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt Escargot, I am more than glad to help you, but I'd rather not report MacedoRoman. We have very few Aromanian editors (I am assuming you both are Aromanians) and you two are basically the only active ones. I will try to help you but if the user does not give up, I think it's better for the greater good to leave the issue. Super Ψ Dro 11:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why you add the website arumun.com again? This website is a romanian propoganda website! MacedoRoman (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you calm down a bit? What kind of answer do you expect by writing messages like this? By the way, I see you've already talked to Bolt Escargot, meaning that you now know very well (and most likely did before) that there are Aromanians who identify with either Greece or Romania, and not only with the an Aromanian identity. I personally don't think Aromanians are Romanians and they obviously aren't Greeks, and from what I see, you share this opinion, but that doesn't mean you have the right to remove any Aromanian website (or anything else) showing support to either Greece or Romania. Accept that there are more views than yours. Aromanian editors like you are extremely few, instead of fighting with each other you should collaborate and work together. Super Ψ Dro 20:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I took care of your request at

]

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for moving the article and for telling me this. Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're from ROMANIA???? Why then are you defending the Germans?? You're obviously a Gypsie because all Romanians are - it's where you get the name Romani. Didn't Hitler try to wipe you out as well before we came to your rescue? Wow. There is gratitude. Chestermoon (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and your all COMMIES, backward people, like Charchesku was. BUT I'm gonna grant you one thing, your GIRLS are damn beautiful and I love Rumanian girls. Chestermoon (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are funny to read. Sadly you'll leave Wikipedia as fast as you joined it. Super Ψ Dro 01:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What do we do with this isolated paragraph sentence, "President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev made a statement regarding the conflict"? I think the article should point out one or two things he said in the speech. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coldtrack, I added some more info. Is it better now? Super Ψ Dro 23:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Great job. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While

]

Yes, you are right, it's just that the typical Romanian stereotypes that I have heard all over again all my life annoy me. I think it was the first time I have left a message to a blocked user and I will try to make it the last. Thanks for the notice. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well no there is more to it than that so I want to make the points very clear. Westernization in Poland appeared to be questioned by Super Droeusaurus. Yes that is the case. The Poles are Roman Catholics, and heavily influenced by and associated with the Germans and Western Europeans. The Romanis of Romania are a mixture of Muslim and EASTERN ORTHODOX Christianity from having spent centuries as part of the Turkish Empire (Ottomans) and being people originating in the Middle East yourselves. Polish are mostly blonde-hair blue-eyed people and hard working. Romanians are mostly olive-skinned dark-eyed people half of whom live in gypsie tents and the other half in ramshackle shanties and the privileged few in mansion houses, and as people they are generally lazy. Not wanting to work, and when they do in the UK, it is usually just to operate car washes as a tax dodge. So yes they were all Marxists once upon a time and yes thank God that's all over, but no they are not all the same. So as you can see, I am not tarring all Eastern Europeans with the same brush. The girls of Romania are very very attractive and that should be enough to demonstrate there is no racism here and the points made are holistically with substance. James Parker Tom (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so you are British hahaha this explains everything. What amazes me the most is that you actually believe your own points and believe they have "substance". And to say that "your women are pretty" does not nullify you from being racist. It is not even worth explaining the other points. I'll just directly report you tomorrow for block evasion and next time don't expect an answer from me. By the way, I was going to tell you to search "Romanians" in Google images and I found this in the THIRD result... No need to say anything else. Super Ψ Dro 18:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no. Ohhhh no. I'm not even the person you think I am despite having the name James. Jimmy Reverence and I are simply members of the Вuсkshа.м Coоperative and that's our only connection. I was just making some points afresh. If I express a fondness for Romanian girls then I cannot be racist against Romanians, just prejudice against the men, but I am not even that. As a European I am impartial on all areas of conflict and furthermore a major supporter of human rights with all nations. Now you show me a source that says Romanians are not in a rush to come to the UK. Oh really? Why are there so many over here then? Every turning in every town has forecourts full of Romanian car washers. Have you bothered to take a good look at your source? It is the FINANCIAL TIMES. In other words it is a Marxist rag which cannot be reliable, especially on social matters when it specializes primarily in "financial" reporting. That's the name of the newspaper. But yeah go ahead and explain me the other points. I'd like to know where I am wrong but being an ardent fact-checker, I am not wrong about anything I told you. Poles are Catholics, Romanians are Orthodox with Islamic overtones from Turkish rule. Your cuisine is different to Polish - oh and that's another thing. I like Romanian food. My favourite kebab shop is ran not by Turks but by Romanians. You can taste the difference and it is much better than any Turkish-run kebab shop I know, or are you going to accuse me of being anti-Turkish as well now? James Parker Tom (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super,

I wish you a Merry Christmas and as well La Multi Ani as for the next Year! Best Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, köszönöm my friend! Boldog karácsonyt és boldog új évet for you too! Super Ψ Dro 15:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you reverted the removal of red-link entries in

]

Gene93k, the articles were mainly deleted due to verification problems. One of them (I think Bashlibel massacre) was literally a pile of unreferenced text. But I don't think they are not notable. An editor saved one of the articles after expanding it (Gugark pogrom) and it was excluded from the deletion. But they can be restored at any time. I do not see the sense of removing links to them, it only obscures the topics and makes a possible future recreation of the articles difficult. Solavirum, who fixed Gugark pogrom and avoided its deletion, might be able to tell if the other massacres were notable enough as to have an article. If they aren't then the links should indeed be removed. Super Ψ Dro 22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A live navbox is not the place to do this. Alternatives include communicating with Solavirm or other interested editors, notifying relevant WikiProjects and restarting as draft space stubs, based on reliable sources. Each topic needs to show on its own that it can overcome the issues raised at AfD. A page needs to show at least plausible viability. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]