This is childlish:

First of all, I am tired of people who show up to a page and think they have the right to add any modifications they feel like. Next time, before you have the intentions of modifying the alticle considerably (or the contents in this case) it would be wise to write down something in the discussion page, otheriwse you work might end up being in vane.
Secondly, the tempalte for the content is BY FAR THE UGLIEST I have ever seen. It quite hard for a newcomer to realize he has got to look through the text. The old content probably wasn't the best possible, but was significantly better. Also, the old content is not occupied by history in more than 50%. 
I understand Romania has a rich history, but the notion of independence was not a huge idea before 1800s. India has existed as a 'culture' long before the Roman Empire, therefore there is no point in comapring the importance of the history section of the two countries. Check the Germany article to see the model I have edited the format of the history section. You are welcome to edit the history section, but do not add 20 entries about history in the contents section (i.e.: that is why national awakening, independence and union are in the same section; feel free to modify the name, but do not further split it). Also, for similar reasons, there is little point in expanding the section about Dacia.
I might be worong, but you seem to play around a lot with the position of the images. Please do not. Right now they are placed where they are because of some specific reasons.
I will add more comment later 

Now the answers:
 You are welcome. Next time you add about 30k+ of information to an article and somebody comes and starts freaking with the article, you will be really happy.
 Appearance and professional looking? Is that what you are calling the template for the contents section? Come on, try to be objective and agrre that even the contents section on the present page is really ugly.
 I have allready replied to this and I do not feel the need to throw away some of my time to add more reasoning to this rather retarded dispute. Note: The big size also has a real outcome, and that is the article is really annoying to edit because it takes almost 10secs between the press of the save button and the reloading of the page (and it is not my connection)
 Again I allready explained this. The issue was not the byte count but the length of the contents section that took several pages to scroll down (and I think more than hald of the contents were SMALL entries into the history section).
 The article is about Romania, not about the History of Romania. Again feel free to click this link and edit. The history is there, it happened, and therefore the history ARTICLE should be expanded. "(some of us hate to change pages!)" Some other readers hate to search stuff about Romania and have to scroll down through pages of history to get to some more present facts." Putting links is not equivilent to giving a reader a recap of the era—in particular, I find the way you did it in that page to be poorly prioritized." This is your opinion. The page has beeen previously reviewed by other users (check the article milistone) and they found it actually really aggreable and felt the need to specify the usefulness of the way it was 'prioritizied'.
 For exampel in Europa Yearbook (a kind of printed version of CIA Factbook that is printed yearly). Also, your example with journals is at least annoying. Journals are actually reviewed by professionals, which means that people who nt what is happening agree on those formalities. This is not Libertatea where you need to put catchy titles to make people buy your crap. This is an encyclopaedia and should have some professionalism in the way titles are given.
 I checked and decided the contents section is REAAAAALLY "off-putting". It is unfortunate, but I find it fair to undo edits from people who do not ask first, than to reedit their edits.
 IT IS UGLY!!!!!! Also, what browsers? Anything that is not Firefox or IE has no weight. (i.e. even Opera is a niche browser)

Also, I did not get the joke about first of July. If you were refering to the date I have created this account, then... you are at least superficial to base your opinions on that. There are al least two possibilities that you cannot prove with this kind of research: 1) that I did not have another account before then. 2) that I did not do real publishing in real life (i.e. in real Journals, were people review your stuff before publishing)
Cheers and have fun at not modifying the contents section in a way allready described why not to.