Hi all! Found a bit of time to return to language studies, maybe even a bit of art studies as well. If there's anything you'd like to discuss please leave a message here and I'll reply asap.

Hi, hope you're well. An editor added a tag to an unclear bit of info [1] and I saw it had been you who added it a year ago [2]. Do you think you could clarify that bit of the text? Regards, Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Super Dromaeosaurus! I've rephrased that part, hope it is clearer now. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Țara Chioarului. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Aristeus01 (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romanians, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Istro-Romanian, Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aristeus01,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Romanian National Council for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Romanian National Council to be deleted, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

C F A 16:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aristeus01,

I remember you from the discussion on the page History of Transylvania regarding the maps. There is an issue on the Second Vienna Award and Northern Transylvania pages with the same user, OrionNimrod. He essentially wishes to remove content regarding atrocities commited in Northern Transylvania by Hungarians, calling it anti-Hungarian bias and that the data is not in the source, strange sources or no sources. Which I don't know what to say to this because the edits have sources. He doesn't speak about anything specific that he disagrees with or why, just that everything in the edit is bad overall.

As far as I know, as long as a content is sourced, you need an actual reason to object it.

He even added falsehoods himself such as in this edit where he replaced "measures of terror imposed by the new authorities" with "some cases" for some reason, and changed "Official data" with "Romanian statistics" despite the data provided by the source not being exclusively Romanian statistics but also from the Kingdom of Hungary.

He also added "however Romania was an allied country at that time" for the source ^[1]. Which (a) the source doesn't say that. (b) it's not even true, Romania was not an allied country at that time.

Or about the population, he is upset that I made a table where I also added Hungarian estimations about the population in 1940, saying that the source says no such thing, when the source does, and not only that, there is also a paragraph on the page using the same source saying the same thing: "Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 percent to over 50 percent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used".

Given such events, I think he's upset that bad things are said about Hungary regardless of accuracy and don't think he can be reasoned with, but at the same time I remember from the History of Transylvania maps page that reverting one another is bad. So could you offer me an advice on how to go about this? TheThorLat (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheThorLat. You should probably disengage if you feel a discussion would be pointless at this moment. However, discussing content and changes is the only avenue to fix these sort of disagreements and either now or later when you think the discussion would be more cerebral, do open a talk page section for the topic. Keep in mind discussing on the talk page should be done with the aim of improving the article and one should assume good faith from the interlocutor. In other words, don't make it a battlefield.

There are quite a few ways to reach an agreement if the discussion on the talk page failed:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Anyway, I see in the revision history already an uncivil remark. Don't chose the path of making this a personal dispute. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: you were also part of that discussion, what is normally done in these cases? TheThorLat (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samuil Micu-Klein, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enlightenment and Romanian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aristeus, hope you're good. Thank you for creating a page for Roja, I had been dragging making one since May 2022 (!), when I made pages for Mihail Boiagi and Constantin Ucuta. As a fun fact, you just gave an article to the final author of the first Aromanian generation of writers (composed by these three, Theodore Kavalliotis and Daniel Moscopolites) that was missing one, so congratulations on that achievement. It's always good to see work for this neglected topic area. Regards! Super Ψ Dro 22:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

There is an ongoing RFC here regarding Second Vienna Award & Northern Transylvania pages: [3]. The last message was 10 days ago and there seems to be no sign of new messages. But there is already a 3rd opinion. When can the RFC be considered closed and how should the closing of the RFC be approached?

Thank you! TheThorLat (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheThorLat! It is unlikely that this the RfC will attract more interest. I'm not sure what the outcome is: did you reach a consensus? In any case, follow RfC recommendations and if you just want to close it then remove the RfC flag. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think a consensus is a realistic scenario as one of the people involved is OrionNimrod. But the other person agrees with me on 8/9 points. Could this be considered a consensus? for those 8 points while the other one can remain unchanged. Please take a look and tell me what you think. TheThorLat (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheThorLat The comment added by the uninvolved user is thorough and clear. I didn't see any strong protest, I guess that means you both are as close to a consensus as it can possibly get. I believe the issue subject to WP:SYNTH is better dropped, something I see you agree with now.

What I would do is close the RfC. If you want to make the recommended changes, go ahead. If there are further disagreements on the same issues, open the RfC again. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]