User talk:Biruitorul/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Biruitorul/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

request

Hello! I`ve got one request for you. I collect words in various languages. Now I`m looking for word "sugar" in other languages, but I can`t find an Aromanian dictionary. I`ve got counterparts of word "sugar" in Japanese, Ahmaric, Thai, Georgian and Chinese, so can you write me what is "sugar" in Aromanian language? I`ve got this word in 298 languages and dialects of many regions and countries in the world so it is very important for me! Thank you very much! Szoltys <talk>

Thanks

Hi, thanks for correcting the names of Moldovan cities. However, on this edit, keep in mind that they didn't call it Chişinău back then, as it was part of Russia. I suggest you say "Kishinev (today called Chişinău)", or something like that. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 22:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll be careful. Biruitorul 22:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate what you're doing by the way. Ciao. —Khoikhoi 23:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for doing this. A lot of the texts that "disambiguated" to names without diacritics predated the switch over to Unicode. Thanks for cleaning them up. - Jmabel | Talk 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Brasov

Your edits are very related to Brasov as I could see. I speak many languages. See you, have to take a short nap. Only one thing more, your name implies something, it gives you weight, so I suppose you have the kind of winner mentality.--Preacher, or Princelet 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Union

You are 100% right. Christian is the right way to go about it. Renata 03:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

...And I moved it myself. Thasnks for the heads up! ;) Renata 03:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Allow me

I, Irpen, hereby somewhat belatedly give you this Exceptional Newcomer Award for your your excellent contribution towards Eastern European topics, including, but not limited to, a great number of useful small edits and corrections. Please keep up the good work! --Irpen 03:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish POV

Please stop changing place names to current Polish spelling, as you already did in too many articles. These are often very controversial, to say the least, and you are helping the cause of users which already have been blocked several times. --Matthead 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel intimidated, your edits are perfectely fine Biruitorul, the above user has strong POV in regards to topics involving Poland or Lithuania. --Molobo 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you answered on my talk page (and Molobo's), but I prefer to keep it on one place rather than three - here, where I started. To keep it short, I believe your edit tonite caught my attention. Reverts by you and Polish user Szopen lead to my statement and the attempt by regarding our battle-scarred friend Molobo to take advantage of my 4th edit. If you are interested in correct spelling with non-English letters, please have a look at Talk:Wilhelmstrasse, there is a lot to do just regarding Straße/Strasse. In the meantime, please be very careful with editing articles that had achieved a stable compromise, like Copernicus, as claims to his nationality were discussed several years within Wikipedia, and for centuries outside, so no need to start all over again. Also, please have a look at Talk:Gdansk/Vote to get an idea about previous discussions and compromises. --Matthead 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the wider context and debates on the matter, which don't concern us directly, what have you got to say to my 13-point rebuttal?

And I also oppose your revert on the Thirteen Years' War article. We can debate Poznań/Posen, but the city was never called Poznan, so I don't find that usage acceptable. Biruitorul 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Buna,

A inceput un vot pentru stergerea "Wikipediei Moldovenesti", o creatie a unui Evreu-American, cu origini suspecte in Basarabia si care nu vorbeste limba wikipediei la care pretinde a fi sysop. Il cheama Node ue si pentru a crea impresia ca lumea doreste aceasta wikipedie, a apelat la toti utilizatorii rusi care au venit sa voteze de partea lui desi nu cunosc bine subiectul si li s-a spus ca voteaza pentru supravietuirea alfabetului chirilic. Asa a ajuns ca votul sa fie 31 pentru stergerea Mo wiki, si 42 impotriva stergerii - deci in alte cuvinte pentru pastrarea wikipediei in limba "moldoveneasca". Vino si voteaza aici[1] , ca sa sergem acesta creatura cu miros bolshevic, care insulta toti romanii de pe ambele maluri ale Prutului. Node ue le-a spus rusilor sa traduca mesajul lui in limba rusa si sa-l transmita mai departe. Trimite si tu mesajul acesta la toti utilizatorii romani-unionisti sau romani-moldoveni unionisti pe care-i cunosti pe en.wiki sau ro.wiki. Dapiks 23:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a long time past so I suppose my remarks will be irrelevant but:

1. Yes, this is an accurate description of Node and his conduct.
2. Nonetheless, specifically contacting people you expect to be on one side of a debate is not appropriate conduct, even when the other side has already done this. It's perfectly appropriate to try to reach all interested parties. It's not appropriate to try to stack the discussion. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Biruitorul,

The First Consul Napoleon was ambiguous in creating an order that was not an order... The Legion of honour. Now should we regard this a body of man and write " The first awards in the Légion d'Honneur .. " or should we regard it as an order of knighthood or even a cross and write " The first awards of the Légion d'Honneur on 16 August 1804 at the camp of Boulogne"? It is the consul, that great political wizzard, that created this dillema. I have thought about it, considered it, and concluded that a man was appointed into this body of men. Maybe the Dutch language where people are made knights IN an order of knighthood inspired me.

I can live with your intervention but how do we phrase he French "Chevalier de la" in English?

Robert Prummel 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

About Hawthorne

I was not aware that his last name had changed during his career. I apoligize for that. In any case however, I suggest using (born <something>) to make it more obvious, which I added just now. Cheers. -- Jared A. Hunt 13:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when they are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." Martinp23 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Greg Watson

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Greg Watson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Greg Watson. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mr Bluefin 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

British Royalty

Biruitorul/Archive1, WikiProject British Royalty wants you! WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

DBD 11:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania

Ar fi bine sa vezi articolul.--222.109.87.130 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tasesa Lavea

Thanks for adjusting the spellings to "Māori". Really should've done it myself but somehow it slipped my mind.

Slask Swietochlowice

hi there this is Tymek 04:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) give me some time and do not change the slask swietochlowice article you have changed it stating that it WAS a sports club in fact it still exists I just need time to finish this article regards

RE:Putna

Salut! Nu, o evidenta speciala nu am, doar ca sunt incluse acolo PAINTED CHURHCES AND MONASTERIES OF MOLDOVA/BUCOVINA, iar Putna se afla printre acestea. Am o intrebare daca tot m-ati apelat. Ati putea va rog sa imi spuneti de ce astia imi sterg pozele mele personale create de mine la articolul Romania care le-am uploadat acolo? Mersi! Toate cele buna, Arthur 16 August 2006

question

Anyways just a question

You seem to be following some ot the articles on history of Polish soccer

How come? Are you interested in it or what?

Greetings Tymek 16:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Raimondo

You're correct. I had never been aware of that style before, but there it is. I'll change it back.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Miho Iwata

Thanks for cleaning up my references to Polish cities! Dina 11:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Bucharest in World War II

I think those were good edits you made and I see no reason to revert. Thank you. What do you think of the article as it stands now? The Jurnalul Naţional article linked to at the bottom has a couple of good images, but those are probably copyright. Other than that, if you know of any way to improve it, please do so. Eventually, an article on the WWI bombing should also be written.

On an unrelated point: I posted a version of this message to User:Angr's talk page but he appears otherwise engaged at the moment, so perhaps you could offer some advice:

An IP editor keeps changing this template. I'd like my last revision to stand, for reasons that I've enumerated in the IP editor's talk and on the German noticeboard (where I received User:Carabinieri's support). If you'd like me to restate my reasons, I can do that. However, what I don't want is a long revert war. Do you think semi-protection might be justified? Biruitorul 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the template: I went in and tried to split the difference. I'm not the least bit wedded to what I'm proposing, just trying out a possible compromise.

On the Bombing: why is it called Bombing of Bucharest… when it's really Bombing of Romania? Other than that, I think it's a good start. We could probably go into more detail about what was lost (wasn't this when the National Theatre was damaged beyond repair?); we could certainly say more about how this fit into the war tactically and strategically; there is a lot more to be said from the Allied side; and there's a question I put on the talk page, but I think you have gotten this off to a really good start. We should get this one onto WP:DYK, if we can find a good "hook". - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I figure I can skip giving you a reproduction of your next round of remarks on my talk page; I'd say we should have both articles, Bombing of Bucharest… & Bombing of Romania…, with a summary paragraph in each leading to the other. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for not replying sooner. I am going to get to doing that in the coming hours, but I was wondering if we have covered all info on bombings over Romania: do we have info on Soviet bombings and their frequency as well? (All I have in the way of that is the colloquial and rather absurdist story my grandma told me on how American planes she saw were cool-looking silver arrows, while the Soviet ones were winged tractors...) I can also add some info on Axis bombings, which I have referenced in History of Bucharest. I'll let you and Jmabel know when I'm done.

I'm also due with a reply on the noticeboard, but, since we seem to agree with the spirit of future edits, it is only a minor suggestion that I'll add here. You suggested referencing 1990 to "See also", which may, however, still induce that the two are intimately connected; what I propose instead is adding a short reference to them inside the body of text, in the section reserved for summarizing the Revolution (which we are bound to have), as a paragraph indicating what the demonstrators considered themselves to be fighting against. That should please all sides. As for the pre-1947 situation: I think mention of resistance against the Groza gvt will, in fact, "write itself", as, if the regime was not established, opposition was (so, yes, a comprehensive section to the resistance's "prehistory" is a very good idea - perhaps as "Opposition to the Groza government" or some other such title).

A minor request, Biruitorul: when replying to me in Romanian, please use the informal "tu". I believe I have been only too informal for me to deserve a "dumneavoastra". Cheers. Dahn 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir Mix-a-Lot

Damn, I run into you everywhere! So, if I may ask, what brought you over to that page?

I live in Seattle. He's the one real star out of the local hip-hop scene here; one of my best friends knows him from high school (though I'm older and originally from New York). - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's only stalking if you are harrassing once you get there. No problem. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Presidents of Poland

Hi Biruitorul, I think it's best not to make the template too complicated and let the template articles do the explaining. Appleseed (Talk) 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a reasonable solution. I should have said so right away. Appleseed (Talk) 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cinema of Romania

I hate to be in the position of having to say anything less than entirely positive about your work, because so much that you've done has been so good, but could you please see my comments at Talk:Cinema of Romania? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bombing of Bucharest in World War II, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Bucharaest

Yes, tagging that as a minor edit was a late-night mistake on my part- sorry about that. I'm glad that my edit helped to balance the section, which frankly was, to speak euphemistically, a bit rose-tinted previously. Whether the people of Romania were largely in support of the Allies I cannot say- but the fact is that that country was providing massive (and enthusiastic) support to Nazi Germany in terms of troops, war materials and most disgracefully, by their active participation in the Holocaust (cf., for example, Italy). Bucharest was a very fair target (if one can argue that deliberately bombing civilians can ever be considered "fair"- the practice is inherently disgraceful, but that is a separate point). Thanks for your comment, Badgerpatrol 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ciobanul

Hi and sorry for the late reply. I did some minor edits on the article (including removing the reference to Magazin Istoric, which I believe should be more specific - article, year, month). For the titles: we have them on Historical Romanian ranks and titles (I took the liberty of removing the equivalents given on Mircea's page, since they show up in the list or will show up in the article; some of those need merging with their Slavic or Greek equivalents - I have kept logofat as an individual link, which may or may not redirect to logothetes - I personally think it should redirect). For the number: I support the view that numbers be assigned only to those rulers who do not have a differntiating particle (such as "Ciobanul"), since numeral usage is, IMO, highly unorthodox for the local context; that said, I would either not count Ciobanul, but only those Mirceas whom we cannot otherwise tell apart, or count all but not assign Ciobanul a numeral (as in school when learning arithmetic, I would "keep it in mind" :)). Cheers. Dahn 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Muslim and Islam

Islam is the name of the religion, comparable to the names Christianity and Buddhism. A Muslim is a follower of or a believer in Islam, as a Christian is a person who follows Christianity and a Buddhist is a person who follows Buddhism.

The article "Musims in Fiji" is about the people - not the religion. There are other Wikipedia artiles on Muslims e.g.

Muslims in Europe

Muslims on Africa

Muslims in America

User:Girmitya

List of Turkish genocides by Greeks

To explain to you the history of this page, it was originally created by Blue sea/"Steven Banks" a long time ago, and was later renamed to List of alleged Turkish casualties of Greco-Turkish conflicts. After that it went through AfD and was deleted. Therefore, I have speedied the articles. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Biruitorul 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbian surnames

I've made some changes and corrections to the article, but I would say it's still a stub. I've removed two or three surnames that I'm sure don't exist and added some important ones, but this still needs much improvement. Anyway, thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll try to improve this article in the future.--Vitriden 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jeannette Vermeersch, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Lucretiu

Excellent. Could you please indicate the edition you used, so that I may give direct references? Thank you. Dahn 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind me following you on the Vermeersch article. I was jealous that you get stuff like that featured, and I've done some editing on French communist articles myself. Excellent work, btw.) Dahn 09:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Dahn 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work

You are doing great work; this may be a little early, but: any interest in being an admin? - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you! I would indeed be interested in adminship, but I agree that we ought to wait a couple of months before initiating an RfA. I should note that over 97% of my edits are in the Main or Template spaces – would this be a big problem, do you think? Biruitorul 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be to some people. Does raise one issue: do you even want to be involved in admin tasks? Sometimes I wish I had just stuck to working on articles... Still, when the time comes, I'll gladly support you, and the fact that our politics couldn't be much farther apart should presumably make my support count for something. - Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You should build up experience in project namespace, such as AfD, or any *fDs, RfA, maybe some participation in AN and AN/I, RCP etc. plus some vandal fighting and leaving test templates. You're unlikely to succeed otherwise. Tyrenius 04:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

UEFA Club Football Awards

There was definitely a spate of vandalism on the above page, luckily, by the time I was connected again after being ill, it all looks good again... Xobxela 08:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:GeorgiaPresidents

Hi Biruitorul

I have resized the flags so they should now have the same size (the right one is effectively 20px + two borders of 1 px each so I resized the left one to 22px). I agree that the template looks better if all four presidents are located on the same line, but all four articles already look this way on my screen. If you feel there are any more problems feel free to mail me again. Cheers. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Vino la pagina de discutii Transnistria

În 17 septembrie va fi referendum în Transnistria legat de independenţa regiunii. Cu această ocazie probabil multă lume va căuta pe Wikipedia informaţii despre Transnistria. Am încercat să adaug în articol nişte informaţii legate de acest referendum, anume:

- faptul că mai multe organizaţii antiseparatiste au lansat un apel la boicotare, considerînd referendumul "farsă"

- faptul că din 46 de ţări membre ale Consiliului Europei, 45 sînt împotriva recunoaşterii referendumului, numai RUsia are altă părere

- faptul că datele Comisiei Electorale Centrale din Tiraspol au fost schimbate în mod ciudat, anume numărul total de alegători s-a micşorat cu 7% faţă de 2005, ceea ce ridică suspiciuni asupra unei încercări de creştere artificială a prezenţei la vot prin raportarea unui număr mai mic de alegători înregistraţi.

Totdeauna am dat lincurile care dovedesc cele scrise de mine, n-am născocit nimic din burtă.

Userul William Mauco, care pare fan Tiraspol, mereu mi-a şters adăugirile. (vezi istoria paginii)

Puteţi vedea la pagina de discuţii Transnistria ce argumente a adus. Anume: ăia care cer boicotarea referendumului din Transnistria sînt foşti KGB-işti, că aşa zice o organizaţie rusească de analiză (a dat un linc pentru asta). Întîi a spus că respectivii nici nu sînt din Transnistria, ci doar din Basarabia, dar i-am dovedit că unii dintre semnatarii apelului la boicot sînt transnistreni. Am fost împăciuitor, i-am zis că n-are decît să adauge părerea organizaţiei ruseşti că antiseparatiştii sînt foşti KGBişti, că n-are decît să-i considere pe cei care vor boicotarea referendumului drept băieţi răi, dar faptul în sine, că s-a cerut boicotarea referendumului, trebuie menţionat. Degeaba, mereu mi s-au şters adăugirile - pentru celelalte 2 fapte nici n-a adus argumente.

A mai fost o adăugire care a şters-o, despre arestarea a 4 persoane din Transnistria care sînt împotriva separatismului (între timp li s-a dat drumul). În cazul ăsta am renunţat eu să mai insist pentru includerea informaţiei în articol (deşi informaţia e incontestabilă), tocmai fiindcă n-am vrut să mă cert prea mult.

În perioada asta cînd agenţiile de ştiri vor menţiona referendumul de la Tiraspol, se va citi articolul Transnistria în Wikipedia poate mai mult decît într-un an întreg. De aia acum e nevoie să existe în articol informaţii despre contestarea corectitudinii referendumului. Nu cer să se menţioneze ca adevăr absolut faptul că referendumul e incorect, ci doar că există unii (OSCE, 45 din 46 ţări ale Consiliului Europei, unele organizaţii din zonă şi din Basarabia) care consideră asta. Vă cer de aceea sprijinul ca să interveniţi pe pagina de discuţii Transnistria pentru a susţine rămînerea informaţiei în pagină şi să repuneţi informaţia atunci cînd Mauco o şterge (eu nu pot să verific chiar 24 de ore din 24). Evitaţi atacurile suburbane, păstraţi ton civilizat. mulţumesc.

Who is William Mauco Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) http://0.bypass-filter.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZGx1Y2FzLmJsb2dzcG90LmNvbS8yMDA2LzA4L2dvdGNoYS0yLmh0bWw%3D

Edward Lucas wrote about Mauco: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 09:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

De ce nu trebuie renunţat la Transnistria

Măcar ca monedă de schimb, pentru un eventual schimb de teritorii cu Ucraina legat de Bucovina de nord şi Basarabia de Sud, şi tot avem nevoie de Transnistria.

Eu aş susţine o graniţă etnografică, care să includă zonele majoritar româneşti din Transnistria (Dubăsari, Grigoriopol) şi zonele majoritar româneşti din regiunile Cernăuţi şi Bugeac (Herţa, Noua Suliţă, Reni), lăsînd Ucrainei zonele slave (Tiraspol, Rîbniţa, Cetatea Albă, partea de Nord a regiunii Cernăuţi). Un articol care poate vă interesează despre conflictul din Transnistria: http://ro.altermedia.info/politica/conflictul-transnistrean-vzut-de-un-transnistrean_4421.html.

Partea basarabeană a Republicii Moldova "alunecă" natural spre România - vezi rezultatele ultimului recensămînt http://ro.altermedia.info/minoritati/ultimele-date-ale-recensmintului-din-republica-moldova_3814.html. Ruşii şi-au dat seama că acolo au pierdut deja partida, de aia alde Belkovski ne-o oferă. Oferă ceea ce nu mai deţin, cu aerul că fac o concesie.--MariusM 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ro FMs

Hi, and thank you for your careful and valuable edits. I'm afraid all I could do was to add the dates for the very last ones, curtesy of http://documentare.rompres.ro/guverne.php . Dahn 12:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Orthography

Thanks for your interest in the Romanian Literature page. Although I am a noobie Wikipedia rules require discussion be written on the talk page of an article before reverting edits. We have a real problem with Romanian orthography as it appears in the English Wiki. Please join in discusion on the talk page of the article Romanian literature. --Doina Collins 14:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you did not answer on the appropriate talk page, I moved your reply to me to the discussion page of Romanian literature. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CON and let's continue on the proper talk page. --Doina Collins 00:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1853, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Malaxa

Excellent. On that article, I was just working with what was already in there. I'll remove the category "fascists" accordingly, and work your sources into the article. The truth is I know little about the guy. I would not trust them on the dob, though (consider how explicit the date in the text already is). Btw, do you know if he ever became a citizen? Dahn 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry, you had already answered that. Didn't quite process one of your conclusions.) Dahn 05:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff. I will add them in. I notice you added some ?? after confusing words: I suppose by "Hitler's terror in Romania" they mean the National Legionary State (which the Allies tended to dismiss strictly as Nazi puppeteering); the M. in front of his name I guess stands for "mister" (I recently got hold of some issue of Viata Romaneasca, and they use "D." instead of "Domnul"). Thank you. Dahn 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I had thought of a way to put the mention about his industry serving the Nazis in one way or another (since the accusation was launched at him in this way), without excluding the possibility that he was forced to do so. The article you cite is pretty sketchy, and does not exclude, for example, the possibility of him having ceded part of the ownership (like Krupp and others did in the context of German corporatism-partnership). In fact, I think we have an even more intriguing possibilty: note the fact that he was prosecuted for his part in the rebellion, and that no mention is made of whatever happened with that (while other articles seem to indicate that nothing happened); I'm ready to assume that the Germans said "awright, guys, we're taking over the case, you go about your business" (he still had a faboulous fortune at the end of it, apparently).

The mention of his fortune's size is certainly to be included, and I'm sorry for not having done it already (it's just that I got lost in all the details).

On a sidenote: I believe that the widespread perception of the Iron Guard as a Nazi puppet unwittingly offered a moral getaway for a lot of Romania's contribution to the history of murder. What is really frustrating is that, since this was usually a "progressive" thesis, a lot of people have chosen to abide by it blindly - which allowed a lot of original crap in Romanian politics to be excused by alleged foreign influence. Dahn 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Constantin notable enough to get his own article in the future, or is he destined to remain a sentence in his father's article? Dahn 22:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will add the extra info sometime soon. Dahn 23:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 referendum in Transnistria

I don't agree with the change of the article name regarding the 2006 referendum in Transnistria in "Transnistrian independence referendum", as the first question in the referendum was about a future joining of Russian Federation, which mean losing independence. Please join talk page of the article.--MariusM 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

When moving pages, please don't forget to fix double redirects, as in 2006 referendum in Transnistria. `'mikka (t) 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for talk pages too. `'mikka (t) 23:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are doing an unnecessary work: you have to fix only double redirects, i.e., redirects that redirect to a yet another redirect page. Usage of "single" redirects is perfectly legal: it makes linking from various texts easier. `'mikka (t) 00:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Gyurcsány protests

Hi,

Thanks for adding the Romania-related info, we need that both here and in HuWiki. Keep up the good work. regards, – Alensha  ^talk 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Biruitorul 22:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical list of members of the National Constituent Assembly of 1789

Very cool. But clearly you had sources for this. This is not the sort of thing anyone just happens to know. Please, please, cite your sources! - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kinda what I guessed. In general, when translating something unreferenced, if you can't find references for it yourself, I really recommend trying to get hold of the person who originally wrote it and encourage them to provide their sources. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

fr:Liste alphabétique des membres de l'Assemblée constituante de 1789

Bonjour cher Biruitorul !
J'avais vu que vous aviez traduit la liste fr:Liste alphabétique des membres de l'Assemblée constituante de 1789 que je suis en train d'essayer d'établir, et je voulais vous en remercier. Ce n'est pas facile de trouver l'information pour reconstituer cette liste, car il n'existe malheureusement pas de liste unique complète. La source principale est le site de l'Assemblée nationale française, qui rassemble des informations sur tous les anciens députés français : [2], mais je trouve d'autres informations sur une multitude de sites, au hasard de mes recherches !
J'espère avoir répondu à votre interrogation,
Cordialement, --83.205.220.167 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Polmars - Discussion

Kasymzhomart Tokayev

Hi, Thanks for adding the references to Kasymzhomart Tokayev! DRK 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Duplicating content in wikipedia is not good

Please don't cut and paste huge pieces of text from one wikipedia article to another, like you did in History of the Romanians in Ukraine. This creates problems with maintaining the content. Poeple start editing diffrent articles, and the content will becom e different. Therefore if there is a detailed "main article" about a topic, other articles must give only a summary. `'mikka (t) 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not looking carefully. It was user:Bojoc Petru who cut-and-pasted an article from several other wikipedia articles. `'mikka (t) 00:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Găgăuzi

Hey Biruitorul. I originally added a {{fact}} tag, but then I noticed that all the numbers were unsourced, so I've replaced them with statistics from the Joshua Project. It didn't mention Brazil, but judging from the talk page, we know at least one Gagauz lives there. ;-) —Khoikhoi 01:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

M.P Dam

It was me who corrected the distance from 50 to 30 km (using the IP id) in the Mullaperiyar Dam article. I shall try to put a valid reference soon. Thanks and cheers.activevoid (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Octavian Utalea.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Octavian Utalea.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

African American & other things

Man, you're fast: I duck out for a piece of cheese and you've fixed my typos before I can look for them. - Jmabel | Talk 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I hope the cheese was to your liking. If I may bring up a couple of unrelated points, though: first, thank you for including the Neruda death citations. However, I wonder to what extent, if any, we should mention possible regime implication in his death. The three sources I found became progressively more sinister, so to speak, with the third claiming up-front that the doctors had been ordered to stop his treatment. I wonder if there's a more absolutely authoritative work on this, or if the cause of his death remains a matter of speculation to some extent.

I noticed the implication. Since I didn't have the books at hand, and frankly don't know a ton about Neruda other than his poetry and a broad outline of his life (the article certainly says far more than I knew before I started working with others on the article, and I haven't done any real research) I wasn't going to try to expand on this. - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The other matter has to do with King Michael's title. If we take these coins as accurate, then it would appear that he (and possibly his predecessors) was King of Romania until 1930, and that his father changed the title to King of the Romanians when he came to power, which Michael kept when he was restored. I suppose the article should reflect that, but I'll wait for your opinion. Biruitorul 03:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit to being relatively uninterested in the distinction. As long as it's cited. I know Napoleon declared himself Emperor of the French rather than "of France" and of course there are historical titles like "King of the Germans", but in this case it seems to be a purely verbal distinction. In Napoleon's case, clearly there was an intent to declare the French to be a single people, whereas pre-revolutionary France had been more decentralized, and a Breton, for example, might not have called himself "French"; I don't see any parallel change in the construction of Romanian nationality at this particular time, but I suppose I could be missing something. It seems rather arbitrary. Did it have any significance that you can see? (Somehow, I doubt he—or the regents—did it just to annoy ethnic minorities.) - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Octavian Utalea

Aveti dreptate cu ambele observatii, legat de articolul ro:Octavian Utalea. La Astra a fost simplu membru, la Cojocna a detinut o functie similara unui subprefect local, dar pana la clarificare am sters informatia. Din pacate nu prea exista informatii pe aceasta tema si pot aparea erori. Va multumesc pentru observatie. Roamataa 05:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadoveanu

Good points (I had originally changed it to "Sadoveanu year" because I did not know in what precise sense it was used - "the year Sadoveanu was most productive" vs. "the year when Sadoveanu was most celebrated" - and this seemed to me to cover both senses). That article is actually on my to do list (part of the content now needs rephrasing and expanding, and much more detail needs to be added - fortunately, I have the sources for it). If you have access to Calinescu, you could perhaps add more on Sadoveanu's oevre (I only have the utterly stupid compendium at home, and the original memorial plate-sized book is an awkward thing to borrow); the article as it was when I reviwed it used only third-rate criticism. As I have mentioned, I could references from Viata Romaneasca, but that is a massive task and would take me a while. Thanks for everything. Dahn 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Karl et al.

I think it is probably the best one possible. The article does need some work (such as being placed in context), but it's good overall. Biruitorul, could you make sure that you create links to it in related articles such as the one on Horthy and the one on Hungary (Hungarian history as well). Thanks. Dahn 01:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have made the same point at the since-deleted-template discussion. (Add to this that Romanian, albeit "official", is not a working language for the Latin Union... so it is roughly equivalent to the official status of French in the Yukon and the official status of Swedish in Karelia). I'm afraid that if I go ind delete it, all I get is the aggravation I got on the "templates for discussion" page, so I'd rather support a move by you than apply it myself for now. Dahn 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist. Dahn 03:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Carol&Horthy

Salut! Articolul cu Carol si Horthy a fost o parte din cel al lui Miklos Horthy. L-am pus separat, dar azi noapte nu am mai stat sa descurc hatisul bibliografiei propusa la Horthy, ca sa vad ce aleg. Dupa ce termin cu biografia lui Horthy, o sa incerc sa ofer surse si pentru ceea ce vrei tu.--Alex:D|^Mesaje 3 octombrie 2006 13:15 (EEST)

Lt Governor flags

I didnt upload them myself, and have no clue what happened to them, but my guess is they were taken down for copyright reasons. You should consider either making them yourself or re-uploading them with proper (or more legal) copyright tags. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sopade

Left some comments on my talk page. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Bamse 02:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Flags

Re: Lieutenant-Governors' flags disappearance - I didn't have anything to do with uploading or torching the L-G images. You might be better to discuss this in WP:CANTALK. Dl2000 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Golden Ring

I believe you put the cart before the horse. What little we have about the architecture of Russian towns was contributed me. I will add the rest when I have time and inspiration. When I do, Russian Wikipedia will be put to shame, because its authors are clueless about the subject. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Phanariotes

Hi. I need your help on the Phanariotes article, where some IP reverts two tags I have added to call for rephrasing text that is anything but neutral (of the "and yet, Islamic indifference to other cultures" kind), as well as restoring two absurd edits: one which linked both Istanbul and Constantinople side by side (even if the second article stops in 1453, and even though we had reached a compromise on the topic months ago) and one which has made a bit of text I had contributed based on sources become its complete opposite. The IP cites the existence of quoted sources: however, none of those edits deals with sources. I do not want to turn that article into a battleground: I had enough troble removing a certain Romanian POV; I want that article to be trully neutral, and a coalition of users with an agenda has been formed against me. Dahn 20:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

On the People's Tribunal issue: I have little familiarity with the topic, but in case I find something, I'll add it there. I am currently going to do major work on the Romanian Communist Party article, and may find some information to add to other articles.

You are definately right about Codreanu's charisma, and probably right about the personal conflict between him and the king. However, I have two sources saying that Carol was ready to collaborate with Codreanu, and that, up to a certain measure, so was Codreanu (which would make the conflict weigh much less than the American journalist leads us to believe); not only that, but Carol left the Guard all alone and fine at a crucial moment in the early 30s (almost like telling them "if you kill a prime minister in this country, you'll never be bothered again"). The matter is much more complicated than that, and the journalist's testimony is also questionable for having been written in 1942 (when the info from inside Romania was distorted, and when Western opinion of Carol was unfair). Dahn 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On the parties' issue: I hadn't actually seen that discussion - I had edited the Parties' List at around the same time without knowledge of the fact. I'm glad I could help, and I want to help in the future, so, in case this expands on other pages, keep me posted. I figure that the list now covers all parties that survived for more than one day between 1859 and 1989 (except for some obscure Popular Fronts the PCR created itself in the 1930s, which I could not keep track of and are likely to be irrelevant). In any case, I plan to turn many the red links into blue in the future.

On the Codreanu topic: I agree with the way you present things. My point was minor in relation to that - even if this was the background, they continued to try and find common ground until Codreanu made himself useless (btw, sources show that, in 1937, the Guard's appeal was much reduced). In fact (and the Guard will never admit to this), Sima and Carol got along just well in in 1940, until just before the Diktat - after negotiations, there were Legionnares in the government. The competing solutions while Codreanu was alive were: a. the king as leader of the legion, Codreanu as leader of the government; b. the king as father figure, Codreanu as doer. Carol rejected a), Codreanu rejected b). This certainly indicates a personal conflict, but I think the American journalist is a bit harsh and quite inaccurate (as he should have been, having reduced information on the matter); I also have some reservations about sourcing that publication (I do not reject sourcing it on principle - I'd just rather look for something reaching the same conclusion). However, writers such as Nagy-Talavera do support something along those lines: the thing about Talavera is that I only have access to the Ro version of his book (and I would feel like a putz referencing it on en wiki). I will look for more sourcable information on the matter, and, in case you come accross it first, feel free to include it.

Man, I'm really happy that you contribute to wikipedia. You are a paradigm of fairness, respect, and competence in editing. We obviously have some major differences in personal political opinions, but it is hard to find people with as much dedication to NPOV as you (and, hopefully, I myself have not let my political views shape my edits). Interesting that we are to edit topics related to the Peasants' Party: if you'll permit me the comparison, we are wikipedia's Mihalache (me) and Maniu (you) :). Dahn 22:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to reply. I agree that the infobox does not really belong with defunct parties (except, perhaps, one reduced in size to mark the essentials alongside the party's symbols). On the original questions raised in connection with the PNT and the PNTCD, I really don't know what to say: I could go either way, except the lazy me wants to say "merge" (because to delete is easier than to rephrase, cut and paste, and switch around).

I too think the Dutch model is best (I especially like the "per ideology" aspect of it - although, god help me, I don't know where to place several inter-war parties... consider the PNT or the PND...). This is, however, entirely your call - I'm sure you'll do as good a job as on the Prime Ministers one, and I will help in any way I can.

Somewhat in conection to this topic, there are some proposals and questions I have raised on Category talk:Romanian politicians by party that you may want to look into.

A big yes on the Church-Iron Guard proposal - although most info should be reditrected to the article on the Guard. I have a book to cite at home - although rather small and centered on the overall Church-regime relations in Romania, it does cover some topics. I have alluded to the humanitarian ventures in the Codreanu article (one use of this was to write down the exact references for this,so that I may revisit them and add detail to the party article). On the other hand, I'm not sure what sort of relation the PNC had with the Church (except for the name and pompous ceremonies attended by prelates and everybody else).

Thank you again. Hopefully, we are only dealing with Grozas and Dejs in their Ţebea phase; we may even have more to fear from Brătianus :). Dahn 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have abused your patience again.

The mainn problem I see with the PNT issue is that the PNTCD article currently looks like crap, so we may eventually be called on by some editor to do something about it. The point you make about the PNL is good indeed, and I have used the same tactic for the PSDR; I don't know, however, what title the PNT page should have (do you favour PNT over PNTCD, with PNTCD as a title for a section of the article? I tend to do so, but I'm not married to the concept in case you object).

Geat work on the template. If any, what icon would you use for the defunct parties template?

I was thinking the same about the PCR members. The problem, though (aside from looking into what the law says), is to find and coin an explicit, short, and objective title for the category if we are to apply that principle (from my experience, mentioning, in a header for the category, the criteria applied is usually not enough for those users who are either not paying attention or not agreeing to the criteria used - so the title should be self-explanatory if possible).

I have changed the sentence in the Codreanu article: thanks for pointing it out. As for the PNC: I don't know if the notice is really stringent. Having "Christian" in the name does not imply a relation with the BOR (it has, I guess more to do with - on one hand - Cuza's mix of racialism and his brand of Christian traditonalism in defining Jews, and - on the other - the pure need of the two parties to contribute each a word to the new party's title - National Agrarian gave National, Christian Defense gave Christian). I don't know if I'm correct in assuming that you consider mentioning the lack of PNC-BOR links to prevent people from wrongly guessing that the PNC was a representative of clerical fascism (I saw you additons on that article, and I agree with them). That would be a good reason in itself, but the fact is that "Christian" added to a party's name was already omnipresent in all sort of politics by then, without those groups being related to any church (including other fascist parties who were not clerico-fascist - while many to most clerico-fascist parties would not call themselves "Christian"). And, after all, who knows? perhaps the PNC did strive for some sort of a relation with the BOR, and a mention that specific would wrongly dismiss the possibility of that. There is little detail anyone knows about that party: I have tried to find some relevant information on the Lăncieri for some time now, and never could; I have even asked people who, although young, are supposed to have seen them around back in the day - all they have answered is "who?". Hopefully, in time, we will fill some gaps.

Interestingly, my family has had no pro-PNT members that I would know of. One great-grandfather I know of was a Poporanist, but voted for Gh. Bratianu and eventually, like all [the many] Poporanists who survived, turned communist. One grandfather was an unusually supportive of the Ploughmen's Front as a youth, then lived the communist illusion for a couple of years. His wife supports the PNL, and so did her entire family from 1923 onwards. The other grandfather probably supported the Iron Guard, but was then the first peasant to join the collective farm... (being poorer than the standard set by collectivization to begin with, he could only benefit from it).

In case you're visiting articles that relate to Straja Tarii somehow, could you please drop a link for it in them? It is currently an isolated article. Many thanks. Dahn 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We agree completely on the PNT issue. I am preparing myself to begin adding information from the other end (working up from 1926), but I want to clarify related articles first (Mihalache, Madgearu, Averescu) - hence, I'll get to do something for the Carol article in time.

For the template: there is one more problem with chronological criteria. If you were to only list parties by when they surfaced, then the template would fail to list relevant parties in their most relevant period (for exampple, the PNL would only go in the 1870s etc); its value as an information source for the unfamiliar reader would thus be diminished. We either have the alphabet or listing them by moment of establishment without separating them into periods.

Thanks for providing the criteria. Hopefully, no one will contribute article on persons who were editors of Femeia or for the chiefs of Militia inspectorates (we would have to prioritize including them over including, say, Istrati). With this exception, the criteria work fine (though I'm still ambivalent about the title - picture someone creating the "members of..." category to include "activists", and us wasting time at the Articles fo discussion page asking Anglo-Saxons with short attention span to mind the particular developments inside Romania).

"If only Wikipedia had been around in the 1930s." - Don't say that. It would make us and our edits useless. (Although it could have probably prevented Stalinism...)

Interesting family story. I have something to match: my grandfather, who, despite being a communist, was not a politruk (he does not seem to be covered by the law) told me stories on the communist greats, which he met on several occassions. If I am to believe him, he was present at the round table when Dimitrov visited Romania, and heard his speech proposing (again) that Romania and Bulgaria unite. He also says that he happened to be present at a CC meeting (where he was sent to report on some task) the day Dej was investiganting reports that Ceauşescu had fired a pistol against a crowd protesting around Slatina (he says that he witnessed the whole debate, and saw several leading politicians suggesting that Ceauşescu be demoted - only for Dej to stand up for him).

Thanks for marrying off Straja Ţării. Dahn 12:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The latest related issue: since the list at the bottom of Romanian Communist Party was clogging the article,I expanded and rationalized the List of Romanian communists, partly using the criteria you so kindly furnished. User:Dpotop added Emil Constantinescu back in; I find the additon irrelvant myself, but would comply with it if the law were to apply to him as well. The quotation you provided ends in an "etc" - is there a chance that he is included in the "etc", in those after "etc", or [in case I failed to notice] even before the "etc"? Many thanks. Dahn 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fidesz

Hi,

I tried to find out which of the numbers are correct, but I found no data from the pre-1998 period even on the official sites of the Fidesz and the elections... anyway, I'm on a politics break right now for many reasons, sorry... maybe the other Hungarians can be of more help. – Alensha ^talk 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Kim To

Hi there; while this article certainly merits speedy deletion please, before marking such articles, learn the {{speedy}} codes. An article marked without an appropriate reason is less likely to be deleted. Look at WP:CSD--Anthony.bradbury 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your question...

BS"D

I personally hold the same position that Uri Lupilanski, Memebers of UTJ(Agudas Yisroel and Degel HaTorah), members of the Chareidi community, and other Torah Jews hold. The Torah directly says "You shall NOT lie with a man as one would lie with a woman." So, as you can see, I'm against it. --Shaul avrom 10:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re

I cannot say that I have deep knowledge of Christianity to help you. Although I am Orthodox, my chief interests are Orthodox Architecture and the decorative qualities of Churches (Frescos, Mosaics, Icons), as well as administrative functions of Orthodox Churches, rather than the deep Christianic details. Sorry about the inconvinience (and the answer delay). --Kuban Cossack 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

changing the article

BS"D

You would need to chld just make the article POV to the right of the spectrum. --Shaul avrom 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:AlexStercaSulutiu.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexStercaSulutiu.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

Hi. I have worked out my draft and willpost it on the sandbox. The modifications I have made:

• a single template for 1856-1947 (part of the reason is having dropped several party links, as explained below - thus making the 1856-1918 template list only two distinct parties)
• removing parties - as per links in list; you see, it is highly improbable that we will get accurate and in-depth info (or in some cases coherent and credible sources) about those parties that are not links in the list (and, even if we do, most of them can adequately fit in the articles for the parties they split from or in those for the persons who started them); in case I'm wrong about some, they can always be added; also, these are not in fact all the parties founded during the period(s) - I found only the most skematic info about parties such as a Partidul Arian, a Partidul Cetăţenesc Durostor, Partidul Ostăşesc etc., which I don't think we would/should ever be having articles on. Granted, some just as minor parties do have articles now, such as the "Italo-Romanian..." sausage - but I've bumped into them when I started contributing here, and only tweaked them to include info from an article in Jurnalul (only o bump into minuscule references about them in Veiga, which actually claim very different stats for the groups)
• tweaking ideologies - turned "fascist" into "fascist, corporatist, and far right" (a broader definition, which allowed me to include the FRN under there, as well as to cover the POV of those who say that the Guard was not exactly fascist etc); used "socialist et al." only for the explicitly socialist groups (I've moved the FP and the PTS to "agrarian", using the same main attribute criteria you seem to have used for keeping MADOSZ and the German Party under "ethnic minority"); I've moved the League of Patriots (this is the title under which we should have the link) to "other", mainly because the only proper ideological category for them would be "incoherent self-seekers".

Hope I haven't forgotten something. In any case,I willpost it there and we'll be discussing it when you have the time. Thanks. Dahn 13:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: I have removed the PNR from "agrarian" (it not being agrarian was in fact the main problem the PNT was to have); sources are divided as to whether it was "liberal" (in the true sense, not in the Romanian "through us ourselves" paranthesis) or "conservative" - I thought about its main and original purpose,and moved it under "nationalist". Dahn 13:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "socialist" thing was just an experiment: we could describe all of them as "socialist" of some kind or another, but I guess your idea is better. The reason I did not use bold was that some categories featured no boldable party; I preferred to leave the main, previously bolded, party in each as the first one mentioned (come to think of it, I wanted to switch them all around at some point, and I think I did that in some categories...). I think we can get that point across through another method: I'll edit in the template, and you tell me what you think. Dahn 20:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. What do you think? Dahn 20:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's ok: if people are looking for specific information about the party, they can find it in the article. One minor request: I notice that the templates are supposed to go at the very bottom of the page (after notes et al). I've moved some around; could you help me move all? Dahn 21:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. Out of curiosity: are you translating from or into English the Olympics article in your sandbox? Dahn 21:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I was just wondering why the Portuguese article would be more comprehensive. I cannot help, unfortunately: I'm struggling with the PCR article and I plan to add an article on the 1946 elections (I've even made a cool map) - perhaps then Anonimu will stoop adding citneeded tags... I know, I promise a lot; but,since I'm focused on related topics, I'm moving towards expanding and improving the Kingdom of Romania article as well (as part of the planned series of major edits on "Romania in..." articles). I'm going to ask for your input on some matters: it may eventually prove necessary to divide the "Kingdom of Romania" article along some lines ("main article" style), and I'm going to pick your brain on this and other issues. What say? (Sometime in the probably distant future) Dahn 21:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Rowing world records

I see that you recently edited the article Rowing world records. I went there looking for info on how fast various size crews could propel a boat, but I am unfamiliar with the sport and could not figure out the abbreviations on each line. Many Wikipedia readers are not experts on rowing. LM4? LM8x????If you have time, the article could be made more accessible with a key to the abbreviations. Thanks, Edison 17:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria

Hi! It's really a very interesting and informative article and a very curious topic indeed! What I think can be improved are the two very short sections Magnitude and Deportation, which should either be expanded or their content should be merged with the rest in a different section of some sort. Indeed, more sources (and inline citations) would be fine, although I can't suggest a particular one, and of course additional details are always nice.

As for the Belene Island camp, the material I've used from the Bulgarian Wikipedia (bg:Белене (концлагер)) doesn't seem to be sourced, so yours seems a lot more trustworthy. I don't see anything wrong with the title: the article may well cover a little more than what it implies, but a good article should include background and additional information, so I think it's fine.

Good luck with the articles about such institutions in other former Communist states in Europe! I'd be happy to help with what I can :) Todor→Bozhinov 12:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ioan Sterca-Şuluţiu

I tried to make this clearer, but it is possible that I misunderstood something ambiguous, and my edit made it unambiguously wrong. Could you check, and correct me if I didn't get this right? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 03:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Bait & switch

List of United States public officials accused of crimes: "Accused" seems awfully vague. The standard ought to be at least indicted or impeached. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

National Peasants' Party

Could you have a look at the recent edits to National Peasants' Party? There's probably quite a bit there, but it was a sloppy job, and the sources are in Romanian, so my guess is that you can follow it up a lot more quickly than I can. - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for not returning with an in-depth answer to you reply. I happened to se your mention of having mailed the party to get their take on the monarchy issue. When you get a reply, could you clarify the current inclusion of Category:Members of the Romanian National Peasants' Party into "Category:Monarchists" based on it? (I had added it based on the article and some traditional attitudes of theirs, but it may no longer apply to many of those included.) Thanks. Dahn 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1907 and other business

Hi. I first need to apologize for something: I had not seen your post on my page on October 16 (I think aqnother dit came right after yours, and I failed to register how much had been added).

Thanks for the invite to the debate: I've been checking it for a while, but I'm a bit too tired to grab a topic in there and chew on it. Perhaps later, if it continues.

The 1907 article is a good project indeed. I have little specialized sources to contribute, but I'll give it my best shot. Also, allow me to point out that wikisource currently hosts the verdicts of Caragiale and Dobrogeanu-Gherea (worth combing over, and good primary sources). I'm afraid there is nothing I can contribute on the topic of pre-1920s territorial divisions, or at least not unless I serendipously bump into some specific information (I was really pissed off some time ago when I noticed that no source mentioning x county in 18th century Wallachia will indicate how much it correponded with a county of the same name in 19th century Romania).

Thanks for the input on the Emil issue. Would you support removing him from the list pending more accurate criteria?

I see the said user removed some unsourced but specific info from Elena's page (I didn't look into it much, but I instantly agreed with him that at least the mention of how she forged "ALL her degrees" [sic] needed to be at least rephrased). That article needs serious copyedit, but, since I have always found topics involving that woman very disturbing, I'd hope you'll allow me to move it to the bottom of my priority list. His edit on Nicolae referred to a newer edit, which I guess he removed for being unreferenced and for adding no value to the text (and so it was). In any case, I've had the Nicolae page on my watchlist for a while now.

Thanks again. Dahn 01:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1956

Hi Biruitorul, you may be happy to hear that 56 is now scheduled for FA on 23 October. Istvan 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to lend a hand. Please let me know when you get going. Thanks Istvan 05:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Kuperjanov.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kuperjanov.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 19:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Luca et al.

Thanks. The slogan had stuck in my mind as "a băgat spaima", so I just translated from my subcouncious. To answer your other question: no, I don't (but I did rum him through a search in there, without an account, just in case). Dahn 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. I'm on it. Dahn 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I guess it is settled about the date (we have two saying 23, not connected with each other). I'll make the change, but I'll add info from the other links later today (thanks, btw: I had bumped into some of them before, byt not into the interesting ones). I'd have to say that, with the template used for photos of such people as Ion Antonescu, that portrait would also qualify (but probably not for the WP:DYK proposal I made). Dahn 05:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Referendum

Hi,

the new constitution has a preamble which describes Kosovo as the part of Serbia. The new constitution has been modernized and is generally regarded as a good one. The current constitution was adopted in 1990 and therefore mentions Serbia as republic within SFRY. The new constitution has been postponed since 2003 and Serbian and Montenegrin Constitutional Charter. There is no mention of monarchy and there are low chances for this to happen especially with the current Crown Prince who doesn`t enjoy a very good image among Serbs and most probably among all minorities. New constitution also says that Serbia is a country of Serbian people and other citizens. The referendum will last for two days - 28 and 29 October.

Unfortunately constitution I can not find a translation of the new constitution. On the website of Government there is only a Serbian version : http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/pages/article.php?id=56753

Avala 11:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Thank you for your help on the Samuel Cate Prescott article. It earned a DYK on October 23, 2006. I really appreciated it. Chris 12:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Grove Brumbaugh

Hi. Just letting you know that the article Martin Grove Brumbaugh, which you submitted on May 11, was recently deleted from Wikipedia because it appeared to be copied from The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission's site, which contains an assertion of copyright.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can reenter the content at Martin Grove Brumbaugh, after describing the release on the talk page. You might also be interested in this discussion, which gives some context on the situation. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Satyajit Ray

The older version has the virtue of brevity. i'd personally go for that one, but I might be biased, since I wrote it.--ppm 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

maybe engaging with Loom91 will be a good idea, I positively don't want a revert war here :)--ppm 00:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Revolutia romana de la 1848

• Nu cred ca trebuie articole diferite referitoare la rev de la 1848 ptr ca toate cartile de istorie pe care le-am citit trateaza evenimentele sub numele de "Revolutia romana de la 1848" si in acest sens iti recomand cartea: "Revolutia romana de la 1848" de Apostol Stan unde sunt evidentiate si legaturile dintre revolutionarii romani din cele 3 provincii si unde se mai arata ca aveau ca scop comune: independenta si chiar unirea asa cum au cerut-o cei din Moldova.
• De la prima enciclopedie romaneasca, Enciclopedia Cugetarea scrisa intre 1936-1939, "Istoria romanilor" de Constantin C. Giurescu , toate articolele de pe internet si cartile de istorie de la scoala, toate acestea trateaza Revolutia de la 1848 in ceea ce-i priveste pe romani in acelasi loc si nu separat.
• Eu nu am inventat nimic nou ci doar am redat ideile exprimate de istorici.
• Mai faci o mare greseala: revolutia din cele 3 provincii au avut legaturi foarte importane intre ele. Se vede ca nu ai citit nicio carte pe aceasta tema. Iti recomand ca un scurt exemplu articolul despre Ioan Buteanu in care o sa vezi ca au existat legaturi intre revolutii. Te rog sa te documentezi mai mult si o sa vezi ca am dreptate.
• Nu te lasa influentat de aparente ci incearca sa te documentezi cand abordezi un subiect. Dacodava

Forma actuală a articolului reflectă niste stereotipii romantice, conform carora daca asa a trebuit sa fie, asa a si fost. Constructia unei istorii nationale si ignorarea faptelor sunt procedee revolute. In aceeasi ordine de idei, mi s-a parut nostim sa-l vad pe Christian Tell (sas din Brasov) trecut ca unul din liderii revolutiei "române". Chestiunea este următoarea: unii au subscris idealurilor nationale burgheze si s-au alaturat proiectelor unor state nationale (indiferent daca apartineau etnic natiunii respective, ex. sasul Christian Tell, devenit revolutionar român, generalul polonez Josef Bem, aprig luptător pentru cauza maghiară etc.), iar altii n-au aderat la proiectul liberal de construire a unei natiuni civice, de cetateni egali, ci au dorit sa ramana in continuare ceea ce sunt - croati, romani, sasi etc. Mi se pare interesant ca si in prezent cei care bat moneda pe caracterul national al statului neaga celorlalte etnii drepturi specifice, la fel cum revolutionarii de la 1848 negau etniilor drepturi specifice. Conceptul iacobin de "egalitate" a fost si este interpretat in sens omogenizator, unificator, de stergere a oricaror particularitati si de "nation-building", chiar cu ajutorul aparatului de stat - prin maghiarizare, românizare etc. - fenomene identice, doar cu sens opus. Cu alte cuvinte, cei mai aprigi demascatori ai maghiarizării, sunt cei mai mari adepti ai românizării si invers. Cam atat despre miscarile revolutionare nationale. Pana la urma s-a ajuns tot la un proiect politic european (supranational), din pacate dupa ce in secolul al XX-lea niste capete infierbantate au incercat sa duca pana la capat conceptul national, prin epurari etnice, pogromuri si alte grozavii impotriva umanitatii. --Mihai Andrei 15:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a superb comment. Dahn 01:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Si gol de continut! Doar multa vorbarie! Dacodava

Constitution

Hi,

I have finally found the English version of the proposed constitution - http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Facts/UstavRS_pdf.pdf Avala 11:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

3 vs. 1

He's splitting the point, and only enforces some rules available in POV historiography. Let them do as they please there, we'll be logical about it. Dahn 14:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On October 25, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lee McClung, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stadtholder Templates

Hi, I think the new stadtholder templates look excellent, apart from one consideration, which I will state below. I will make some minor corrections to start with, though:

• You've listed Philip I of Castile as Stadtholder of Guelders (I saw you added him on the Stadtholder page as well), This person should however be Philip of Burgundy (1465-1524), who in 1517 became bishop of Utrecht.
• In the template on the Stadtholders of Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht, I've added the link to Louis of Flanders.
• From the list of Stadtholders of Overijssel, I removed William I of Orange, as he was never stadtholder there, as far as I know.
• On the template on stadtholders of Groningen, I replaced Charles, Duke of Guelders with Karel van Gelre, who was not the duke himself but his (bastard) son.

The one minor consideration is that the templates do not show what kind of Stadtholder we're dealing with. In the extreme consideration of Groningen, it shows subsequently stadtholders from the Duke of Guelders, the Habsburgs and the Dutch Republic. The others show stadtholders from the Habsburgs and from the Dutch Republic. As some provinces even had two stadtholders at the same time during the early stages of the Dutch Revolt (a Habsburg and a rebel one), it might be interesting to show who is which. Do you think there might be a good way of showing this (and do you agree it is worth showing)? Anyway, good work! Tom 11:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Biruitorul, Thank you for your confidence. I'm a bit busy lately, so making larger edits takes me a while. I have however made an attempt at changing some of the templates. I'm not very experienced with this, so there might be some things that look bad (I'm particularly not sure about the flags and the orange colour). Would you mind looking at them? You can find them here. These three contain most of the greater differences in design between all the templates. I would value your opinion. Tom 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Biruitorul

Maybe your message was one of the most moving messages I've ever received in WP. Thank you. Be certain, that I am not the one building up the heat. I have shown great patience and goodwill to everyone, despite the fact that I am being constantly attacked. •NikoSilver• 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied in my talk and copied this message there too for continuity. •NikoSilver• 19:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Again. :-) •NikoSilver• 10:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Once more... :-) •NikoSilver• 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As one of the parties, I cannot hand out a the equivalent of the Nobel. However, consider yourself the recipient of one of one of these ;). Dahn 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Waaaay ahead of you :) (pure coincidence, I guess - I decided to track you down before you commended me to do so...). Dahn 01:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. The thing is that they expect direct references (notes) for a DYK article. I don't have more to contribute to that article,unless you mean to say that the references have some more detail that deserves to be added (I did not look through them); I don't think I have any material available on him (I may bump into some by sheer coincidence). I tried to find whether a text by Zamfirescu on him is available online (there may have been one, since the man wrote a lot of memoirs); couldn't find one, but I bumped into this (biased) text - check out the picture. Perhaps I am going to comb through the texts later (I want to deal with some unfinished business first). Dahn 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll also see if I can find something. You are obviously right about the in-line thing, but I'm guessing that's because the admins don't live up to their own standards... no, wait... I think I'm going to be a little more subjective and say that they let those two pass through without proper citations because the topics are American-related (whereas if you say that Badea Cârţan was actually a human and alive at some point in the 19th century, you'll have to be able to prove that claim - since these exotic things happened somewhere other than in America). [this has been just a sample of a Dahn rant; if you want to purchase the entire record of live recordings, call 1800-DAHNRANT] Dahn 06:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What I really can't understand is the superficiality of cliches: people are actually ready to believe that some laws of nature tend not to apply the farther one stands from Michigan or Sussex. They are ready to believe anything about Romania, and tend to fade away when the banality of events is being shed light on. There is much to say here: for example, in the battle for attention between Hungarian and Romanian nationalists, despite the fact that nothing would have happened in Transylvania were it not for President Wilson's poetry samples, and despite the fact that most Americans indicate that poetry to still occupies a central position in their patrimony, the Hungarians will tend to win because they have a more Romantic and more suicidal saga to tell. Romanians in fact play along: whenever a Romanian argues that Vlad was actually a hero (because Eminescu, Codreanu and Ceauşescu told him so), an angel loses its wings - aside from the fact that the point is lacking, the average Westerner isn't even going to see anything other than a confirmation of a prejudice (ie: a weirdo ranting about another weirdo, cause what else can they be doing out there).

What is really discouraging is that I've copyedited the entire Vlad article twice, only for two parties to battle their fantasies throughout it again and again. What was left untouched is apparently a large piece of plagiarism; somebody claimed at some point that he or she had approval to copy the text from idontknowwhatsite.com, but I feel I should ask that person "so what?!" (it's basically an indication that we are to reserve the basic researching and composing a piece of original writing for the colourful templates and the maniacal talk pages - and, if it's indeed ok to copypaste articles of the internet, a network that they share with wikipedia, why copy them at all?). I saw what you were reverting in the article: that was the second tv-based edit there, and it is just as stupid as the first one (that one was something a guy saw on some Sky documentary...). But, in case you want to see a bucketfull, check this out. All editing of the Vlad article seems hopelsess in front of a few kids who watch tv... we're not gonna bbe able to protect any version for ever. Dahn 07:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On another note: this is by far the most boring article I've ever written... :) Dahn 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The good thing about expanding an article with referenced stuff is that you get yourself material for other articles as well. For example, the expansion of Barbu Stirbey (which is, indeed, a more than reasonable demand) has some material covered on Gheorghe Tătărescu#World War; as you noticed, I generally focus on improving one article at a time (or thereabouts), and Stirbey is a lot of work - I promise I'll give it a go in the future with what's available around the net and around chez moi.

The Ziua issue is indeed interesting, but we don't know yet if the phenomenon is noticeable enough (I didn't see any definite number on people returning); a more relevant part of the article would be the reclamation of property, but I cannot myself decide whether it is relevant enough for the community as a whole (I tend to stay away from contributing text on very recent developments).

Our original topic (sorry for the delay): the average Romanian also has no or a very distorted image of what is supposed to be his own history - an inner exoticism which makes the outer one understandable. Aside from the descendants of the Dacians on wikipedia, other utterly insane distortions to very simple facts abund among reasonably cultured people, to a point where I have to pine for the Dracula cliche. Just two examples, both from my recent history of tv watching, both (incidentally) on B1 and around the same topics (the Szekelyland and autonomy). One was a well-known journalist who said "the Hungarians are trying to steal everything,including our Iancu" - I was thinking "didn't they 'steal him' when he was alive, by making him their military leader and regent?". The other one involved the lawyer Pavelescu, who started ranting against a historian who, when addressing the issue of Romanian arrogance in the context of relations in Transylvania, told him that, among others, the Brâncoveanu "resistance to conversion" is speculation based on misinterpretation - Pavelescu insisted that "Romanians need their myths" (which, although meant as collectivist patriotism, is in effect painfully condescending on the very people it "defends"). And think about how much presumpton and invention was always involved in creating and recreating our history - we used it to prove a point, not to record a fact (for one, the Dracula choice has to be between a vampire and a defender of the West - when it looks to me like the one verdict possible is "a demented walker-on who got very lucky for a very short while"). Dahn 15:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I just checked out your DYK on Cârţan: the thing is, I don't tink anyone actually took him for a stone-made Dacian, so you could perhaps rephrase that to "compared to" (or even something on the lines of "hailed as" "jokingly referred to as"). Dahn 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rev 1848

• Un exemplu care mi-a scapat a fost prezenta revolutionarilor munteni la Adunarea de la Blaj si mai ales a celor moldoveni, printre care si A.I. Cuza. Dacodava

Thanks for your help

Thank for your for your help on the Underwood Canning Company article. It earned a DYK yesterday. I really appreciated it. Chris 15:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Answers to Goldblith questions

1. His wife's maiden name was Greenberg. Thank you for catching that mistake. 2. Her death was considered "tragic" in her husband's eyes in his autobiography Appetite for Life because she had died while they were vacationing in Paris in 1990. The only one of three Goldblith's books I have is about Prescott so I am having to go on the information I have right now. I hope this helps. Chris 20:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation help requested

Could I prevail upon you to translate Marius's remarks at Wikipedia_talk:Romanian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Duble_standarde_la_Wikipedia? I believe I've understood him correctly, but I'm very hesitant to respond when there is any chance at all that I have misunderstood, since it is clearly a sensitive matter. If you'd rather not do this, just let me know and I'll ask someone else. - Jmabel | Talk 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:Prime Ministers of Australia

Sir, I must once again state my disagreement with your removal of a second mention of Menzies from the template. While I see your point, my own argument is based on consistency. Are you willing to remove a second mention of Arvid Lindman from Template:SwedishPrimeMinisters? Of Olusẹgun Ọbasanjọ from Template:NigerianPresidents? Of Grover Cleveland from Template:US Presidents? Of Wilhelm Marx from Template:GermanChancellors? Of Jacques Chirac from Template:Heads of government of France? Of Alexandru Averescu from Template:RomanianPrimeMinisters? Of William Lyon Mackenzie King and Pierre Trudeau from Template:CanPM? If so, that would be somewhat drastic. If not, why not? What makes Australia special in this regard? Biruitorul 22:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really mind about those other templates, but it just happens that this is the way all of the Australian templates have been done for a long time (cf {{VictoriaPremiers}}), and I think it works better. If you mentioned Menzies' second term, you'd have to mention Deakin's second and third terms, and Fisher's second and third terms, plus Hughes' second and third terms, which would get very complicated since they were consecutive, but are actually separate terms since he was leading three different parties.

It seems much easier to keep all that information at Prime Minister of Australia#List of Prime Ministers, where there's space to fit it all in, and keep the template as a simple list. --bainer (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

On 6 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Badea Cârţan, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On November 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nestor Lakoba, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Tank you for your help on the Thermal death time article. It earned a DYK yesterday. I really appreciate it! Chris 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signing messages

I always sign my comments. Maybe you have me confused with someone else? CRCulver 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that Jesus Prayer article. Well, as I said before, there is no need for foreign-language text there when on the left sidebar the user can already see the prayer in whatever language he desires. CRCulver 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

Hi, when you get some time, could you please list your {{POV}} concerns about this article Occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in its talk page. Thank you.:Dc76 06:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

PMs template

I thought about that. I made the template of the List of Prime Ministers of Portugal and in the Third Republic section they use the number one on Palma Carlos and list various names at the Junta de Salvação Nacional. I thought: Well, none of those names was really really the Prime Minister I guess and if Palma Carlos has the number one there, I'll put him first. You are totally free to change if you believe it should be changed. Cheers--Serte * Talk * Contribs 10:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:PMPortugal1974. It should be on the list. What do you think now?

PSD(R)

Excellent point. I will look into why that is (my current guess is that it was a gradual move, and sources may focus on either its beginning or its end).

Sorry for not replying on the rest of the topics. I believe they deserved a fuller answer, and was about to start writing it, but other issues kept coming up (and we seemed to bump into each other on countless pages). It is an interesting chat, and I promise I'll pick it up at some point.

Btw, thanks for redirects such as "PNL-Bratianu": you halved the effort put into what is otherwise a dreary job. Dahn 13:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. For the Chamber leader vs. Prime Minister issue, you could go with Order of precedence in Romania (which implicitly indicates that the former is above the latter). I would favour PM always above FM myself, but I'm not married to the concept. In fact, perhaps we should consider moving FM data to an infobox or a succession box - eventually, we're bound to have more data on lists of various Romanian ministers, and infoboxes like that for Ionel Brătianu would become immense. Either that or draw a line after FMs (no Interior or Finance or Tourism). What say you? Dahn 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(If you want to see something really funny, check out how my Regulamentul Organic is slowly being translated on ro:wiki - please note not just the opening paragraph, but also the headers...) Dahn 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the order of precedence is short, I guess it is because, besides them having to call elections sometime before the PM steps in after all others get assassinated, all the ministers are inferior to the PM - and I guess that, if need be, we could just use the alphabet after PMs. Of course, for limiting the latter, the Offices of State proposal is an excellent parallel. Btw, it's not clear to me: where you in favour of the Head of the Chamber above PM per Order of Precedence, or were you proposing PM first?

For a bug in every system, I have to return to the Ionel paradigm: that man held every office, each of them twice at least... we could just make an infobox for an "everything" :).

The infoboxes... oh, man... the infoboxes... For the communists, I'm guessing they go with the "but not Jewish/Judaeo-Freemason/Zionist" cliche - and who better than Gică (who, as a bonus, also reaches out to the both Ceauşescu fans and haters)? Sure, they could have gone with Ilie Pintilie or Roaită... but at least they didn't pick Pleşiţă. It is perplexing that Maniu is a Christian Democrat and that Codreanu aims to represent all nationalists (except the non-radicals, if you noticed that blue infobox - I'd replace the "rad" symbol with a picture of Iorga or Take Ionescu, if I were them - thousands of Romanian conservatives would object to the latter being "one of them"). For Codreanu, it is almost like having a picture of Codreanu for "this user is a Romanian Orthodox" (or a picture of Charles Manson for "this user is a hippie"). Let us also note that Emperor Ionel stands for Liberals - although he only had the party name to back it... On the other hand, I find the infobox for socialist kinda heart-warming - we so often forget that very interesting dude and what he did.

The one infobox I am praying for on wikipedia and elsewhere is "this user abides by the principles of Titu Maiorescu". We need that as much as Americans need oil. Dahn 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. To speculate, it may be that the two orders are the same in Romania (and probably extend further?). I cannot begin to find out where I should look this up, though.

Btw, since we are on the subject, I'm glad that at least they thought of moving Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu Cabinet to Romanian Cabinet. Dahn 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was involved in a quarell with ES Vic, as you may know, after having redirected it to the article on Tăriceanu - as in the Léon Blum#Blum's First Government, 4 June 1936 - 22 June 1937 example, which I find particularly informative, better structured, and more easily accessible for the casual reader (if the casual reader who needs the particular info knows anything to begin with, that has to be the PM's name). Your example could do as well, I guess, but it is a bit more complicated, and we are missing a lot of relevant info for pre-1989 cabinets to create separate lists.

Alas, is in numerous other cases, ES Vic did not look before he lept, and too many Romanian users tend to believe themselves free from the constraints of common sense. Dahn 02:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

David Eldridge

I'm not sure what "recently" means. I just paraphrased the book that is referenced. Check that book and use your judgment. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-14 15:57Z

Adam Michnik

There is no source that this individual's name ever was "Aaron Szechter". Therefore it should not be contained within the article. Please do not replace it unless you have a worthy source for the information. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Medal

For your great efforts, I present you the DYK Medal. Keep up the good work! ↔ ANAS - Talk 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The DYK Medal

Request

Salut Biruitorul! When you have the time, would you mind checking the Northern Maramureş for spelling, grammar & missing diacritics? BTW, thanks for creating {{Dalai Lamas}}, its creation was a good idea. Ciao, Khoikhoi 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was amazing! Thank you so much. Cheers, Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think it's a good idea as well to have one page that summarizes the other ones. Maybe we could have something like History of Máramaros/Maramureş and Carpathian Ruthenia? :-) I really haven't a clue as to what we'd call this page either. I'm not sure if Maramureş would work as it seems somewhat POV to me (to pick the Romanian name over the Ukrainian, Hungarian, Rusyn, etc. names). You should probably tell Dc76 about this as well. Cheers (and thanks again), Khoikhoi 06:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Khoikhoi 06:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

O rugaminte

Hallo Biruitorul! Te contactez referitor la articolul legat de pictorul George Stefanescu, tatal meu. Dupa ce am facut propriul lui site in Romania am descoperit Wikipedia pe care o consider un proiect superb. Am scris articolul despre tatal meu in romana dupa care am inceput incetul cu incetul sa descopar diversitatea uriasa de conexiuni si posibilitati ale Wikipediei. Traind in Romania in perioada anilor 60 - 70 am cunoscut personal oameni de cultura, am amintiri din acea perioada si o arhiva fotografica interesanta (vezi de pilda fotografia bisericii Ienei pe care am inserat-o in articolul referitor la cutremurul din 1977 - unde am inceput un articol referitor la monumentele arhitectonice care au disparut in urma cutremurului). Am inceput articole despre colectionari de arta romani, muzee din Bucuresti, pictori romani, localitati din Germania, etc. care au legatura cu articolul meu de baza. Al doilea pas a fost traducerea articolului in germana unde m-am descurcat pana acum bine avand la dispozitie o arhiva in limba germana si traind in doua lumi (Romania si Germania). Dupa care, pe baza experientei acumulate cu Wikipedia romana si cea germana am folosit o traducere din germana in engleza facuta de un traducator (asa zis specializat!!!) german din orasul in care traim in Germania. Nefiind un bun cunoscator al limbii engleze nu am putut sa fac mari corecturi. Asa ca te rog, ajuta-ma sa pun in ordine articolul (drag mie). Deasemenea poate ma indrumi ce sa fac ca sa raspund cerintei lui Jmabel care spune "a lengthy quote should be explicity attributed, not just footnoted+a few copy edits". Am la dispozitie o arhiva documentara suficient de mare pentru a face un articol suficient de corect, numai ca nu stiu inca toate cerintele din Wikipedia engleza. Citind toate articolele legate de cum sa scrii articole dureaza foarte mult pana cand gasesti exact ce te intereseaza. Este ca atunci cand inveti sa canti la pian; intai notele si dupa mult timp poti canta. Am incercat sa ma descurc cu Wikipedia in cele trei limbi prin metoda cautarii articolelor de calitate despre pictori si adaptarea informatiilor pe care le am dupa modelul respectiv. Sa stii ca sunt bine intentionat si ma straduiesc sa scriu articole cat mai bune, dar am nevoie de sustinerea unor specialisti in Wikipedia. Am vazut ca esti vorbitor nativ al celor doua limbi (romana si engleza) si ca te intereseaza proiectele legate de Romania. De aceea mi-am permis sa iti cer sprijinul. Cu multumiri Radustefanescugross 09:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Multumesc

Multumesc pentru frumosul raspuns. Mi-ar face placere sa-mi spui Radu pentru ca altfel ma simt prea in varsta pentru frumosul vostru proiect. Cunosc foarte bine lucrarile maestrului Bunescu. Pot spune ca am crescut cu ele. Tatal meu a avut si are o mare afectiune pentru trei maestri ai picturi romane; pentru Darascu care i-a fost profesor si prieten si pentru Bunescu si Ghiata. Lucrarile lor au fost intotdeauna "pe sufletul lui". Iti multumesc de ajutor si poate putem sa facem impreuna anumite proiecte. Eu am documentatie legata de pictura romaneasca si putin din lumea teatrului. Cred ca mai usor putem comunica pe mail. Eu folosesc doua adrese si anume la birou : [email protected] si acasa [email protected]. Daca imi dai adresa ta de mail iti pot trimete datele care le consideri tu necesare pentru articolul despre tatal meu. Radustefanescugross 10:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just One Question

I am new to editing wikipedia and was wondering why you deleted my addition to the john Mark Karr page. Please get in contact to explain. I was just hoping to understand how to be more careful in the future. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrik1888 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Third opinion

As most of the discussion seems to have occurred on your and CRCulver's talk page, I thought I'd reply there. I'll post a copy of this to him as well.

While it's quite interesting that the prayer has been translated into this many languages, I think a simple note of that fact (the Jesus Prayer has been translated into over X languages...) would probably be more appropriate then a large list of full-text translations. Of course, these translations being available, you may wish to ask if some of the other language Wikis would be interested-if they're trying to write an article on this or translate this one it would probably be quite helpful to them! However, I do agree that such a list is probably a bit too long and cumbersome to belong in the article proper. Seraphimblade 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with Seraphimblade. I've re-added the list. If it is removed, please contact me on my talkpage - User talk:KazakhPol. Regards, KazakhPol 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

New article

Hey Biruitorul, I finially decided to create the Istro-Romanians article today (mostly split-off from Istro-Romanian language). If you would like to contribute, that would be great. Thanks, Khoikhoi 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again. I'll try to do some research. Khoikhoi 23:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Accession 2005

Apparently, we have some misunderstanding here. The Bulgarian article says that the members of the 331-seat Senate (not the 331 members of the Senate) ratified it and notes that the Communists abstained. It doesn't discuss the number and the absent senators. I searched using Google for "Франция ратифицира", but none of the news articles I could find discusses the exact number, so tbe Romanian article sounds more reliable. Todor→Bozhinov 12:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Back on track

Sorry for the delay. As it is those articles appear to have been created with a purpose in mind, and I'm not sure I agree with their relevancy to an encyclopaedia (their tone appears to be reserved - with or without Mikkalai's edits: perhaps one could reference the more subjective claims). I have tried to look into them, but did not have the time; and then, I noticed articles such as this one, and decided to give up altogether :). Perhaps at another time (you're doing a great job keeping them neat, btw).

On other topics: I cannot seem to find much on the 1907 rebellion, or, rather, I cannot find something that would bridge the gap between the sides, just various people who support some allegation or another. That is to say, we may get to expand on the legacy way more than on the actual events... Hopefully, something will come along. I know I also owe you research on topics such as the anti-communist resistance, but I was not able to look through Memoria (btw, we could use the online versions of their newer issues, although they appear to have since become ridiculously diversified and vague). Dahn 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

[3] Good point! Cheers. :-) Mcginnly | Natter 09:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Norhtern Maramures

Hi, Sorry that I answer late. Thank you very much for your work in the article. Your observations are logical and I agree that we should decide on how to deal with this. I will try to summarize how I see one possible solution (of course I am open to any suggestions and modifications, that's exactly why I am telling you):

• merge Carpathian Ruthenia and Carpatho-Ukraine. They deal with the same thing: the area inhabitted by Rusins/Ukrainians/Boiko/Lemko/Hutsul on the inner slopes of the Carpathians. I see this article as containing (among other things) everything about their history up to 1945, as well as explanations of what Rusins/Ukrainians/Boiko/Lemko/Hutsul are. I don't see the reason for the existance of a separe article Carpatho-Ukraine, because that formation existed only 1 day (15-16 March 1939), and its article is in fact practically a copy of Carpathian Ruthenia. Of course, if someone writes a specific article about 15-16 March 1939, that would make sense. But noone hinders one to do this in the future. A separate article is desearved by the Subcarpathian Rus, the name of the autonomuous region of Czechoslovakia in 1920-1939, but again, someone would have to write a specific article about 1920-1939 politics/economy/events/population etc - that subject is covered very superficially so far on wikipedia, and again one can start such an article in the future. We can leave a note in the "See also" section of the merged article: "If you have additional info, and want to create separate articles about the political entities of 1920-1939, 15-16 March 1939, please do, but when talking about info prior to 1920, link to this article (Carpathian Ruthenia) in order to avoid content forking.".
• Zakarpattia Oblast is a legitimate article that deals with the political entity: region of Ukrainian SSR, and later of Ukraine, so it should cover everything after 1945, and geography/economy/politics/etc, but not go too far into history, rather link to Carpathian Ruthenia for that.
• My impression is that the article Zakarpattia Oblast would in time become bigger, so subthemes would be derived from it. I see the article Northern Maramureş as one such theme. (Other such themes could be the Boiko region, the region inhabitted by Hungarians, themes about ecology and Carpathian mountains, themes for differnt cities, and obviously links to the pages of the historic counties Ung, Bereg and Ugocsa (the other 3)). When talking about history, Northern Maramureş will not focuss only on Ruthenians (ethnic group), but on Maramureş (geographical region). In fact, you can talk about Ukrainians in Maramures only from 16th centruy on, unlike the rest of Zakarpattia Oblast, so we are forced to talk about the region, not about an ethnic group. When talking about geography, population, economy, Northern Maramureş will only mention local stuff that is not mentioned in Zakarpattia Oblast, and basics that are necessary for understanding, but when talking about historic monuments, some ecological parks, local traditions, it seems to me logical to do this in Northern Maramureş, not in Zakarpattia Oblast. This will only enhance the richness of the culture of Zakarpattia Oblast.
• Maramureş County has the same legitimacy as Zakarpattia Oblast, so again, events after 1920 go here, and everything about population/economy/modern politics etc
• Máramaros or Maramureş I see as an article dealing with the region prior to 1918-1920, especially when it is about history. So, it is like Carpathian Ruthenia, only it's geographical, not ethnical. I have not included yet history in the article Northern Maramureş - if we create this article Máramaros or Maramureş, then most of history prior to 1918 should go here, while Northern Maramureş should contain only later events, and only short reference to older ones with direct link to the other article. The problem that arises here, is whether Máramaros was meant to be an article about the region (county, voevodate, and before) in general, or only about the county Máramaros in 1870-1918. We should ask the main editors of that article what was/is their intention. If 1870-1918, then ok, then just add that events prior to 1870 go to another article called simply Maramureş, and those after 1918 - to Zakarpattia Oblast and Maramureş County. Also, I see the name Maramureş as perfectly neutral, provided we say immmediately that in Hungarian is Máramaros, in German is..., in Ukrainian... The preferred English name happens to come from the Romanian, so what? Just like Ugocsa and Ung, the English names happen to come from Hungarian, not from the Romanian Ugocea and Unguras, or Transylavania happens not to come from Romanian either - I don't see any problem. We have to use the name that is more often used in English, or established as the standard form in English.
• Maramureş (historical region) - honestly, I suggest to delete this article; here is why: only after 1965 the name Maramures was extended (and only informally, and not evryone accepted or understood this) not only over Maramures county, but also over Satu Mare county. There is no official region Maramures (in the sence or "region" being something bigger than "county", something contianing several counties). The name is only used unofficially by a very limitted amount of people. I rather see "Northern Transylvania(historical and statistical region)", containing 6 counties: Maramures, Satu Mare, Salaj, Oradea, Cluj and Bistrita-Nasaud. I do not confuse it with "Northern Transylvania(1940-1944)", which does not contain all of the former, and contains also something extra from the Southern Transylvania (parts of Mures, Harghita and Covasna). I see legitimate for Crisana to have a separate article as a historic region, because it containes 3 counties: Arad, Oradea and Satu Mare, but I don't understand why some want to artificially create a region Maramures just because they do not want to see the combination of words "Crisana and Maramures" as 3+1 counties, but prefer 2+2 counties. It is like playing with geographical names.

Now, that does not mean that Tara Oasului, Almasul Salajan, Ciceu, etc are not close culturally with Maramures - they are, but they are close to Bistrita or Salaj in the same degree, and there are also important local specificities. Being situated in a territory which is rich in culture, they desearve (in time) separate articles. So what if that refers to small regions of 100,000 or 200,000 people? If there is something interesting and specific - by all means, they will have articles of their own, obviously linked to the articles about bigger regions (counties, Crisana, Transylvania, Romania, etc)

If we agree that my view described above holds (more or less), then Maramureş (disambiguation) can look like this:

Maramureş may refer to one of the following:

• Maramureş Mountains
• Maramureş County, a county of Romania (1918-present)
• Maramureş (Hungarian: Máramaros), a historic county of Transylvania (until 1918)
• Northern Maramureş, a region in Zakarpattia Oblast in Ukraine

What do you think? :Dc76 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I answered you in my user page. See you later! Bye for today.:Dc76 02:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your plan on my talk page. I suggest we start implementing all this and work out some smaller detainls along the way, because I find it difficult to keep all these details in mind (they have grown so much in one single day!) I don't think we will find ourselves contradicting each other, but I will from time to time ask for more clarification, just to understand how things are organized. I copied all our discussion here. I suggest to leave each other short notes or simply just the links to what changes we do according to the plan we talked. Last thing, I promiss to work, but I don't promiss to do it today-tomorrow. It will be slow. (I am busy in real life. I hope you understand.) :Dc76 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just making sure we will continue discussing here, so as not to miss somthing.:Dc76 04:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On November 21, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ion Râmaru, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Many thanks again for your work!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thank you for your help on the Charles J. Bates article. It earned a DYK yesterday. I greatly appreciated it. Chris 13:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Animal sounds in foreign languages

I am sorry because I did not have time to answer you before. Regarding these sounds, I do not have time to add Serbian sounds into article, but since Montenegrin language is 100% identical to Ijekavian dialect of Serbian spoken in Montenegro, then if you want to post Serbian names there, you can simply copy Montenegrin names and write that those names are Serbian. I checked the article, and these sounds are same even in my own Ekavian dialect of Serbian, so you will not mistake if you simply copy Montenegrin names. PANONIAN (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Contact details

Can I talk to you in private? Can I have your Yahoo Messenger ID? Onel dragos 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

George Ştefănescu

Don't know if you are watching the article George Ştefănescu. Turns out the original author was Ştefănescu's son. Very interesting, and he's being very helpful as I try to beat the article into shape. But he doesn't have much English, just Romanian and German. At Talk:George Ştefănescu#Several_more_questions he made some very interesting comments, which I did my best to translate, but I'm stuck on a few words, and might have gotten something wrong (though not much, I'm pretty confident). Could I prevail upon you to check my work and make any relevant corrections? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 08:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Paris is worth a mass"

Very apt. It is a pleasure working with you on this. Bucharest, I suppose, is worth a homily.

Are you interested yet in being nominated to be an administrator? I could give you a ringing endorsement: "Biruitorul and I have about 2.7 languages in common, but have diametrically opposite politics. I'm a New York Jewish red-diaper-baby leftist whose guitar-playing father (due to the vagaries of New York ethnic politics) sang "Kevin Barry" with gusto; he may be the only Ulster Unionist Romanian monarchist in captivity. I have observed him to be one of the English-language Wikipedia's most excellent, erudite, even-handed, unbiased contributors; the only reason I even know his politics is from the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, where political discussion is freewheeling." If I'm on vacation when you finally decide to throw your hat in the ring, you can quote me. - Jmabel | Talk 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Pinochet

Oh damn. Terribly sorry about that. I don't know what happened there; I saw your name and the edit, but I guess it wasn't you that added all that stuff. I'm removing my comments. Nishkid64 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

comments on my talk page

Apologies if that's hard to understand. I have cleaned up the comments so they should read in a more facile manner. ... aa:talk 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Long-awaited reply on various topics

Man, I sooo need to apologize for the delay. I kept prioritizing various confrontations with various users - one peachy one on Romanian wiki (the talk page for the ro equivalent of Armenians in Romania), and you have probably seen the rest.

Having witnessed your activities, I feel that voting in favor was my moral duty. I hope you win.

To answer your first query: I think that the x-American templates is pretty much ok, considering some of the alternatives. The unwritten rule on wikipedia seems to be to apply the present-day [supposed or not] links between state and ethnicity backwards, and the practice has resulted in a weird equilibrium. When talking about Ruthenians et al, we have the pattern wherby Ukrainians "take over" - probably weird, and certainly problematic, but as habitual as calling early Transylvanian Romanian emigrants "Romanian-", and not "Austrian-", "Hungarian-", and "Austro-Hungarian-Americans". (Although it seems that the latter ethnicity was paradoxically becoming a more and more valid choice for the state's subjects just after 1900 - with the "hypocritical" definition of Aurel Popovici as Romanian over the impossibility of defining Anton Durcovici as anything really. A thing to ponder for the future is creating and advertising ethnic categories for citizens of Austria-Hungary, and place them under "Cat:Austro-Hungarian people"; however, even though it seems to be a necessary research tool, there are some immense problems to consider before we do it.) On the other hand, such articles could rely solely on self-reference for more modern entries (in any case, they would actually have to find a notorious Moldovan American), A bigger problem than the ones you mention is the incompetent tendency to ascribe a Moldovan to pre-1940 natives of Bessarabia (interestingly, to natives of the entire Bessarabia). As I have said, the equilibrium is uneasy, but the template appears to be workable (even if the tendencies may need to be checked and combed through for ever... and ever... and ever...)

You make a fine point about Rimaru vs. Pirvulescu (only because the latter dies before 1993). I have to rant, though. It bothers me that so many of us keep advertising ours as a non-peripheral culture etc, and then fail to notice that, due only to our accumulated indifference, other languages would basically have to establish transliterations for what is, in effect, a Latin alphabet; that sound is one of the most frequent ones in Romanian, yet we are in the process of establishing what it should be written down as, like some Papuan dialect. Thank you so much, incompetent Academic institutions! Anyway, I don't think that we'll ever find an expert on this matter, but we may set our own rule in time (which may turn Parvulescu into Pirvulescu, or Rimaru back into Ramaru).

If I see more articles like Medgidia, I'm gonna be up for brain surgery. People who write that much crap should be thrown potatoes, because they force me to take an interest in their articles, and I cannot even place that town on a map of Dobruja. :)

I found a two-sentence long article on Mr. Fulga in the 1978 encyclopedia. It basically cites his birthplace (which is... Fulga, Prahova County) and the titles of his main writings, none of which rings a bell. According to them, he wrote "nuvele cu implicatii fantastice (Straniul paradis; Doamna straina)", "romane de evocare a anilor razboiului si a dramelor de constiinta (Eroica; Alexandra si infernul; Moartea lui Orfeu)" and "piese de teatru"). That's about it.

About the cabinets: don't get your hopes up. Alas, they are copypasted off of some Rompres site I myself bumped into a while back, and data does not reach beyond 1944. Basically, they're done downloading as it is. Dahn 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

Biruitorul, it's my pleasure. However, I see that a some editors have expressed reservations regarding your experience. If the nom fails, I suggest you act on their recommendations, and I'm sure your eventual renom will succeed.

On a different note, I realize that you didn't intend it that way, but "Polish Cabal" is something of a pejorative on WP, so I respectfully request you avoid using it. Appleseed (Talk) 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

No problem! Khoikhoi 07:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

More on RfA & Ştefănescu

Looks like we will not get consensus on you being an admin at this time. No really active opposition, just people who seem to think you need to be more involved in the quasi-administrative tasks like warning vandals, participating in *FD, etc., first. Interesting: 2-1/2 years ago when I was up for this, no one raised this sort of concerns (which would have been equally apt about me at that time), but I guess the community standards have changed. You'll just have to decide whether this is stuff you want to do, or if you'd rather not be an admin.

Meanwhile, more great stuff at Talk:George Ştefănescu#Alte lamuriri; there were a couple of phrases I couldn't translate confidently, though, so your help would again be appreciated.

Ideal Wikipedian conditions in Seattle in the moment: so much ice on the roads that they've pretty much shut the city, but the power is working fine, as is DSL. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cu placere. Pe langa ca nu mai strica un admin roman, sa stii editarile tale m-au surprins placut (de ex. treaba aia migaloasa cu diacriticile...) Greier 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: banned users, see my comment in the RFA. I think she is totally wrong. If she is right, then I should no longer be a sysop. We'll see what comes of this. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

You are quite welcome, and I do hope that you become an Administrator here on Wikipedia. Still, I would be lying if I said that I fully support your quest for Adminship: Wikipedia would lose the talents (or rather, the talents would be preoccupied in other things) of a dedicated Wikipedian if he became an Admin.Sharkface217 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Banat

Here you have one historical map of Romania from 1939 showing provinces from that time: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaEthno/politicalmap/Romania_1939.GIF PANONIAN (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Detrimental adminship

pt toţi pe care'i ştiu...Anonimu 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

rfa

You are welcome.

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Romania provinces

Ok, if provinces were formed in 1938 and not in 1929, then you should change that sentence in the Banat article. PANONIAN (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my wikitypos in Template:Archbishops of Canterbury. Not bad, I only had 2 with all those nbsps. Bless you, my child :) — MrDolomite | Talk 15:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Romania

Salve, vezi ca putoare de FunkyFly iarasi editeaza datele economice ale Romaniei. --89.35.79.2 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so 1. It is Bonaparte. 2. My edits are sourced, check the links.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mersi

Mersi pentru corecţiile de la articolul relativ la Opera Română din Cluj. --Roamataa 21:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cu plăcere. Dacă este OK, aş prefera să nu ne formalizăm şi să adresăm reciproc per tu. În cazul în care sunteţi/eşti de acord. --Roamataa 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

rfa

nothing, good work and good luck ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:ObRoy

Hi, and sorry for not addressing the issues you raised, but I have an emergency. Please tell this user what the issue actually is, as he is threatening me with a ban for cleaning up articles that were created on a whim. Dahn 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention, Biru. I have one objection,though: Alexandru Suţu had originally been moved by me from whatever it had been earlier to Alexander Soutzos - per a heated debate with our common friends, the Greek editors (heated not because I disagreed, but because one of them had started making changes halfway, and accusing me of naming articles on Phanariotes to a Romanian version on purpose). I think that it should be moved back to the neutral and traditional Englishified form "Alexander Soutzos", per "Alexander Mourousis", "Constantine Mavrocordatos" etc. We are going to need an admin's tools to perform the change, so here's hoping ;). Dahn 01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to tell you, I really despise such distractions coming from users with original ideas and who feel they are unaccountable (this especially since all the articles created have been stubs of stubs, and well written like crap). Check out this interesting fact of life: I notice that a newbie, User:Alvac, is engaged in creating articles without diacritics, with arbitrary titles, in some cases duplicate of other articles, and that he is intervening in articles already present with some absurd edits. I also notice that he is cranky to say the least, and that his use of English is unmistakably original. We have a little exchange, then he apparently ceases editing altogether. Out of the blue cometh User:ObRoy, who appears to have followed all this debate, reproaches me some imaginary deeds in unmistakably original English, then starts work on articles that seem to pick up precisely where Alvac has left off... Now, I care only too little about the allegations and insults aimed at me in the process (as counter-productive as that may be, you know that I have tended to grab the bull by the horns when faced with that type of response), What I do care about is this apparent "confederation of erudite editors" - since the more careless of admins and stewards not see the lips moving when one editor sits on the other's knees.

I would contribute relevant things to wikipedia rather than to babysit (I keep bumping into interesting things as of late, and I want to get to finish the promised changes on the PCR page). Yet again, I have to admire your patience: one of the many reasons I expect you to come out of that ordeal as a biruitor.

Please, update your watchlist for those. Thanks. Dahn 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

About the links... er... Rost... and a post in some forum... you're kidding... right? I mean, they are severely biased (some of Rost's content even makes me want to propose blacklisting it). You can find all the adequate info in scholarly works,without the propaganda. I gravitate around three or four books and an article that deal with such topics - briefly or at length -, and I know of at least one collection of essays that looks at the heart of Orthodoxy-State relations in Romania. Alas, I don't own all of them, and I don't take as much interest in the topic. But when an article starts with the assumption that the state was controlled by the Freemasons, it has neutrality issues at its core. Dahn 05:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was adding as you were replying. Rost is crypto-Legionary (see the banner link to the right here and the scandal here - it's weird that you have not heard of the latter - and: Pana si noua revista criptolegionara, Rost (nr. 5/2003), fondata la inceputul anului 2003 la Bucuresti, care i-a dedicat lui Paulescu un numar omagial special, schiteaza un gest de distantare fata de numeroasele texte ale medicului (intre care un loc aparte il ocupa cele 3 volume: Biserica si Sinagoga fata cu pacificarea Omenirii, 1924-1925), vorbind despre "o serie dura de brosuri si articole antievreiesti si antimasonice" - aparute dupa primul razboi mondial"[4]) For the other, some of the stuff in there is controversial at a quick glance, but, as I have said, I don't have to go as far: I have to question it simply based on the fact that it begins with a very fringe and inflammatory assumption (not to mention that it does not indicate its source). Dahn 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I could even accept the theory that a large number of politicians were Masons, but my response to this is similar to the view I have about Jews in communism (which you have probably seen me post a couple of hours ago): it's basically resumed by the question "and?" (the full point I was making on that page implied, of course, the verifiable notion that most Romanian communists were never, in fact, Jews, and that the spectacular growth of the party poses people such as those writing for Rost with an actual problem). In the future, when I'll start the promised edits for the Iron Guard article, I'll at least be hinting to Church-Politics relations for that period, and, with your help reference beyond for those articles you want to work on. Dahn 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the main problem is that they have been identified by neutral sources as nationalist in discourse and Legionary apologetics. They may deny Legionary links, but they are still a very problematic source (imagine Anonimu making use of Păunescu when referencing info about Communist Romania - on the basis of Păunescu having denied being a communist...). Now, the matter is indeed one of discourse and what one may read into it, and never of explicit connections: but allow me to speculate that journalists would be much more open about Legionary connections if they wouldn't know that (a) they would discredit themselves and (b) they would risk paying fines through their noses. Dahn 06:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My argument about Rost was actually a correlation of the two: the source has been doubted for being crypto-Legionary (them being allegedly "crypto"-, I don't know how you expect them to confirm it), as well as being manifestly nationalist in discourse. I respect a nationalist discourse (as long as it that does not rely on fallacies), but: I could never call a self-declared and self-promoting nationalist discourse "neutral" or "objective" (none of which exclude the possibility that it is right), just as I'd rather not build an article on Stalin around references from Trotsky (even though I personally think Trotsky's view of Stalin was right, I cannot think it was objective). It is equivalent to referencing RoMare articles by Gheorghe Buzatu - the man is a licensed professional, his article's content may be surprisingly objective (although I'm yet to se such a writing by Buzatu), but do we really want to use RoMare as a reference for anything other than "what RoMare is known to have alleged"?

The sources you seek are still in abundance ([5], [6], [7]), (also see above and below the last two links) without the problems attached.

Btw, Vosganian claims that the Rost issue is slander, given that they republished articles he had sent elsewhere (this is just to clarify a loose end).

About the Jewish - Communist connection: to your excellent points (aside from innate intelligence, where I keep my reserves due to my quite different views on race and ethnicity), I would like to add the Romanian particularities, which should be made clear to those anti-Semites who still blow that old horn. Aside from the fact that, once you are rejected by an entire system (and most vocally by its left-wing branches - from radicals in the PNL to Iorga to some Poporanists), you will naturally head for the margin, where you are protected. If every political mood had acquired an insurrectional aspect after WWI in between fascism and Leninism, the urban class was naturally gravitating towards the latter - which means that the ethnic Romanian would-be-revolutionaries, not as radical in approach (because they were not as close to the periphery), were present in the same percentages, but not in urban Leninism (after the 1907 scandal, their leaders tended to occupy that mi-chemin between city and countryside - be they the Peasantists or the Iron Guard). And, of course,we are talking numbers: I am ever so stunned to hear a person talk about the "Communism of Jews" and then insist on how the PCdR was a fringe party; now, I may be wrong, but I think 1,000 people do not represent anything among 15 million, and that all conclusion about Romanian society based on that number is grossly exaggerated. But, even so, we know for sure that, starting ca. 1930, Stalin Romanianized the party. I have no idea about percentages of membership 1n 1922-1930, but I know that in the 1930s Jews were about a third of members, and they were always below the number of Romanians. None of this mattered in 1947, when the party "somehow" rose to 710,000 members (how many of those newly-arrived were Jewish?). Based on that, I would also tend to think that the impression about the over-abundance of Jews among activists during 1947-1957, although possibly accurate, is also irrelevant: the party structure, was still small in comparison with the number of arrivals, reflected what the party had been (a minuscule head over a giant); those newer cadres that were added to the minuscule head had to have "credentials" of some sort (they were probably pushed forward by acquaintance, preference, status as victims etc, not under any circumstance by "shared ethnicity").

I knew about Leonte (and his wife Hermina), have heard Tismăneanu talk about them, and I had, alas, seen the dreaded article on ro:wiki. The issue with Tismăneanu was actually whether he specifically said that his parents were Jewish (I think he did, but I could not reference it, and had to rely on finding neutral sources). Incidentally, I also bumped into information about Leonte when I was looking for sources on Iorgu Iordan (turns out that he was one of those who voted to have Goma expelled - one of the many problematic parts in Goma's recent attack is that the man, unlike Iordan, did not vote in favor of turning him over to the Securitate! in fact, he also admits someplace else that a third person, also Jewish, voted against any sort of punishment...). Dahn 11:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

cease moves which are against Naming Conventions

You have recently today moved plenty of pages (biographies of Moldavian and Wallachian monarchs) to names which are contradictory to what is instructed at Naming Conventions for rulers. You cannot keep your naming habit in one corner of Wikipedia which goes against valid Naming Conventions. Cease those moves immediately. This warning must not be erased, it is for maintenance and administration of sanctions. To erase this warning is regarded as vandalism. ObRoy 02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention for rulers

Is located at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)

There are several instructions. Two of the most pertinent appear to be:

• European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g., Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg.

(yet examples: Ilia Alexander, Prince of Wallachia, and so forth - not "Ilia Alexandru" without any context - every reader of English Wikipedia is not a Romanian nor it is clear from the outset that a non-contextualized name happens to refer to a Romianian monarch)

• Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; William I, German Emperor, not William I of Prussia, although there should be redirects from these locations. When several states are so associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the intro when one gets the name of the article.

(AND, if two states are so equal that there is no particular "association" more to one of them, then solution has been like Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia, Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife - so it may possibly be "XX, Prince of Moldavia, Prince of Wallachia").

Observe that I have not moved any page related to this discussion, and am going to retain my uninvolvement. I am warning you against moves you and your companion have made against the naming convention. ObRoy 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Îmi pare rău. Sînt sigur că într-o lună sau două vei ajunge. Nu te lăsa. Eşti tare. I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Luci

Sorry about the RfA outcome, but I'm sure you'll storm through at the next elections.

Thanks for the link: I had bumped into it once, though, for some reason, it was going all the way down to the bottom of the page, and complained to myself that "there is no way I'm reading that". But you have brought me back to my senses - I first used it to add content to Gheorghe Tătărescu (I would appreciate your comments on the latter, btw, as I am beginning to begin pondering about pondering about requesting it for FA status - I'll also have more illustrations ready in some time). The link seems to indicate that Tătărescu was an inmate at the time (which is in contradiction with all other sources), but this is probably a mere unfortunate turn of phrase (the "prisons were they were located" part). Dahn 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bantcho Bantchevsky

I assume he spoke English, given the length of his residency in the United States and the fact that he appears to have been able to communicate quite well with his neighbors. Trouble is, neither Times article mentions that fact, and I'm wary of slipping it in merely as an assumption, even one that appears to be an almost-certainty. I guess it wouldn't hurt matters too much to include it... --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 07:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, it was partly due to the fact that his knowledge of English was so obvious that I forgot to include it; I have a rather nasty tendency to overlook things that are right in front of me, I'm afraid. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 07:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

I'm sorry you didn't succeed. :( You would have been a good admin. If you are nominated again, feel free to leave me a message so I can vote – I normally don't follow RfA's, but would like to support you. I'm sure next time you'll succeed. – Alensha ^talk 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I would have voted for you too if I'd known you were up István 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So would I! You need to let us know about these things! :) K. Lástocska 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn. Well, it sounds like enough people had the same addressable issue that it should be a shoo-in later. - Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dacia Aurelia

Asta e doar o precizare: Orsova e situata ceva mai la vest de raul Timoc. Trebuie sa precizam si asta ca sa poata fi un reper ptr straini care nu stiu unde e Orsova.

Te rog sa mai traduci si pasajul de mai jos si sa-l pui in art si cumva si precizarea. Multumesc!

Dacia Aureliană a fost formată din "partea de răsărit a Moesiei superioare" şi din "partea de apus a Moesiei inferioare" şi ţinea de la vest "cam din dreptul Orşovei" până la "vărsarea râului Oescus (azi Iskăr)" în Dunăre, asta în nord, respectiv în sud "atingea cursurile râurilor Axius (azi Vardar) şi Strymon (azi Struma)", incluzând aici şi oraşele Scupi (azi Skoplje) şi Pautalia (azi Kiustendil)

56

Yes, we should get back to that, especially the template. I remember you were going to write a bit about events outside Budapest, go ahead and write it whenever you have time. I will add more to "cultural representations" and I'm also very tempted to write about the political repercussions of 56 up to present day....but I am pretty busy these next few weeks! :) I will write it, maybe around New Year. What ideas do you have? K. Lástocska 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your ideas! I look forward to when we can start implementing them. :) K. Lástocska 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ştefănescu, yet again

Talk:George Ştefănescu#The Sixties: care to check my translations? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 08:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Man, it was one in the morning, I was tired; looks like I made more mistakes just typing English than I did understanding Romanian. I still get really thrown by verb tenses, though, sometime, don't I? - Jmabel | Talk 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Guţă [Tătărescu]

Hm. Yes, I certainly see your points about Tătărescu: I wanted to introduce more stuff on allof those at different times, but could not find any. I'll have a much better chance with Alexandru Averescu, won't I?

I'm not gonna pester you about Rost, although I think you should at least indicate the POV issue if you want to reference it (and I stand by my point that non-problematic references could be found for all of that). Btw, two points of their answer jumped at me: first, they talk about "Gândirism" as if it some great uncorruptible theory, when, in fact, it was the frustrated little brother of the Iron Guard (some would say that it was even more morally objectionable than the Guard overall); secondly, they seem to have a theory about Junimea and what is supported that would make a good section of prominent Junimists roll in their graves (it is also be the first instance where somebody would claim that Junimea and Gândirism would have anything in common. On the whole, I'd say their official attitude is to go as far as the law will permit them. Dahn 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All of that can be dealt with,including images (some Magazine Istorice of the 1970s published political cartoons from the 1920s - I wanted to scan a very elloquent image of him a while back, but forgot which issue it was, and didn't bother looking for it afterwards + I don't own a scanner, but i can use one from time to time). Thanks for the positive words on the text, but I'm sure it has weaknesses there - when and if you feel like reviewing the article further, perhaps you'll find more bugs that it should get rid of.

So we agree to keep writing fără Rost, then :). Although I suppose Anonimu would tell me I suffer from a childhood disease of communism, I have to say that I agree with your point about free expression on such matters (even if I think that Holocaust deniers should at least pay fines - not the case with Rost and even the Legionary press, who simply refuses to talk about this matter). However, I don't think that the law has as much effect as it could: what newspapers like Rost aim for is respectability, and they seem to want to drag more of the Legionary past into respectability (in other words, they have a biased version of the facts, but that is because they are trying to avoid the unavoidable truths about the Iron Guard, and they will always be moderates in comparison to their very models); on the other hand, the underclass of neo-nazis (Antonescans, Simists, those Codrenists who don't strive to appear like some sort of benign Francoist Scouts, as well as other groups) and/or national-Stalinists will always marginally produce their offensive, choppy, and pornographic pulp, with no intent for reaching into the mainstream — where the arm of the law could not afford to ignore them. It is also possible that the Rost-like situation itself encourages its initiators to avoid clear terms: aside from the fact that, in New Right-manner, they have to know by now that they are factually more complex than their idols (and so, they are "something else", whether they want to or not), they know they could probably scare off a lot of customers by stating all their views out load and proud (those conservatives who fear radicalism, even though they sympathize with the message; those people who don't want to get involved into something problematic; those stiff nationalists who obsess over classic nationalist figures to the point of picking Iorga over Codreanu; army officers who salute you if you say the word "Antonescu"; rigid nationalists who think that, once "Romanianized", Communism has done its share of good and is an important part of the national patrimony - which leads them to view the Iron Guard as agents of disorder etc). Dahn 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Menem

Congress has never been independent, least of all under a Peronist president, ever. What Menem didn't want, Congress didn't pass, and conversely, what Menem wanted, the Congress always gave (the opposition either sheepishly agreed, or was outnumbered). But yes, you make a valid point; we should find references that indicate which measures were passed as presidential decrees, which were sent to Congress by the Executive, and which were original Congress initiatives. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 8 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Radu Irimescu, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship retry

Biruitorul, if you are up for admin again in the future, please let me know. We have disagreed more in the past than we have agreed, but they are on issues of interpretation and not on policy or Wikipedia so I still think that you would make a terrific admin and I would very much like to get a chance to support you. - Mauco 16:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfC

Thank you for your comment. In case you are not watching my RfC, you may want to see Responce by Ghirla to István endorsment of Biruitorul and to your outside view as well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This message is what the RFC is about. Piotrus, please look at your contributions and estimate how much of them are "requests for input", "Ghirlandajo said... so I search for your opinion", "I know that you have had conflicts with Ghirla, so please comments on his latest outburst...", "thanks for reporting on Ghirla's actions", etc, etc. I don't how others feel in such situations, but I regards such actions as unseemly and incivil. How many Russian editors did you ask to comment? I suspect that zero. Can you name a single instance when I acted this way? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask editors for input when I am unsure of the right course of action or when I believe they can offer someting valuable to the discussion (I believe user talk pages were invented for that purpose) and I do that without suggesting them what they should write, or ranting about their nationality or experience when they disagree with me. As for Can you name a single instance when I acted this way?, your turning of Russian new articles annoucement page into a 'blacklist' comes to mind, for example. Also, note the link (I see you failed to provide any, so let me provide you with an example from the last hour or so: [8], [9], [10], [11]...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question

In reply to your question: why the scare quotes around the words "massacres" and "betrayals"? You seem to refer to "the massacre" and "the betrayal", while Piotrus has a tendency to present the whole Polish history as a chain of massacres and betrayals. According to him, there were massacres of Poles (e.g., Massacre of Praga) during all Russo-Polish conflicts, and each Russian victory in such a conflict is explained by a "Western betrayal". As for the rest of your comments, I'm not surprized at your ready sympathy for Polish historical traumas (we all sympathize with them); I'm concerned at your lack of understanding of admin abuse, which is the subject of RfC. You say that you collaborate productively with Ukrainian, Hunagrian editors, etc. So do I. I enjoy working with Turkish, Swedish, Finnish, Ukrainian and even Lithuanian editors, but not with Piotrus. Don't you find it strange that the RfC was started by a Russian and a Lithuanian? Has Lithuania suffered from Russia less than Poland or what? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Although you steer the discussion to content disputes, I have neither time nor opportunity to examine the whole sum of Polish-Russian (Lithuanian/German) grievances, as my participation in such disputes is actually very small. I don't want Piotr to be punished (that's not the purpose of RfCs), but I want the community to decry his abuse, so that it would stop. So far, I get only increase of it all, with Piotr running from one user talk page to another with messages more suitable for my kids: "Mum, Mum, look what Michael did!" --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I decided to take my time and explain my position on Katyn, as you have found it prudent to raise the issue in your comment. Since I take no interest in 20th-century and modern politics, I have not examined the issue in detail, but I insisted that we should include into "external links" a link to www.katyn.ru, a website which presents some evidence that the crime was perpetrated by Nazis rather than Soviets. This is based on the ArbCom opinion that every fringe theory should be presented appropriately in the text of the article. If there are different opinions on the guilt (not the fact), they should be mentioned in the text, rather than suppressed. The coverage of 9/11 includes mention of conspiracy theories that the event was engineered by CIA. The same principle is valid for Chechen bombings in Moscow, and for every other such controversial event, but apparently not for Katyn. Needless to say, I was summarily reverted by Piotrus and Halibutt, and there is neither link nor basic information about other opinions in the article. I had neither time nor energy to chat or fight with scores of meatpuppets that were recruited by Piotrus on the Polish noticeboard, therefore I moved on to other issues and there the matter ended. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

there is neither link nor basic information about other opinions in the article. The article does mention there are other theories, it is noted in lead and discussed in detail in two paragraphs in 'Revelations'; it is refereced with several English language sources more reliable (and understandable to most readers) then a Russian-language website. Why I am not suprised that again Ghirla's claims and the facts are not on the same page...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Irimescu et al.

Thank you for writing the Irimescu article in the first place. I had glanced on the MAN page before, and I noticed the hat, but that's about all contact I had with the man - btw, you'd think a general in the most modern branch of the armed forces would not be wearing the most outdated hat (although I guess it's getter than a ceremonial leather cap and goggles). Same thing happened to me with Iorgu Iordan - I had to pick if I was going to write about him or some other commie mentioned in the source; it was then that I remembered reading that Iordan was Bulgarian, which was interesting enough and was going to help me file a new addition for the cat I created back when I needed to "bridge" information on Rakovski and Nicolae Vogoride - so I said "if I can find it mentioned in this source, I'll write an article on him"... and what do you know, it was.

I don't know why Anonimu enjoys wild goose hunts so much, but he's getting repetitive and tiring me. There are two things that annoy me to death in wiki bureaucratic habits: one is using the "this article is based on its x-language equivalent" (as if we couldn't just call for sources etc.) and the absurdity of referencing the same thing on millions of pages (especially when referencing a link, which is basically indicating that we expect people not to click link). But that's me, and I have devised ways not to have to deal with criticism over that. In the Ceauşescu family case, I suggest to either duplicate the references to that page (never mind the sophistry on the talk page about "not being to source alcoholism, nepotism, and abuse", supposedly because they would "always be subjective"; for some reason, Anonimu always thinks that it is not possible to source that two brothers had the same name...) or to reduce the text for the family to brief mentions and leave it to other articles to explain Andruţă's behavior et al. Btw: there is a major problem which you should consider - what is the family article to this? Dahn 01:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That was infuriating and sinister. I wanted to say what the man is, and my version goes beyond "madman", but he is not worth the seconds it would take me to type it (never mind the "bettering through Holocaust" shit, the man does not even ponder that Antonescu also "made better citizens" of his Iron Guardists, and probably of his relatives, but sending them on a cruise to the Urals). Just how much damage has that man caused by now? Why is he still allowed to operate over there? These are the questions Romanian wikipedians need to ask themselves.

The statistic is untenable, as it does not specify what it relies on. There are estimates that I've seen (and a statistic in Tismăneanu, that I did not memorize, which relied on self-definition and showed a group of "Moldovans"). What I do know is that: the statistic provided in that piece of crap, especially since it may be an overall estimate for 1921-1944, is cropped to suit a taste (22% may just as well be, and likely is, the largest single ethnic group); Jews were probably the absolute majority before 1933, i.e. before Stalin ordered Romanians to be recruited en masse (unlike most of the Jew and other minority early members, those Romanians did not take refuge to the USSR and were not decimated there...); in the late 1940s, the PCR's ranks rose 710 times (for real!), and, of course, not "with Jews" (but, as we know, largely with Legionaries and, in parallel, with PSD members). I wouldn't even know where to begin removing that poison, but I would recommend wikipedians there to ban and revert on sight. Dahn 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right about the banning utopia. What's really sad is that I see a user like Arie Inbar, whom I presume id Jewish (he adds interwikis for Hebrew articles) who makes small edits on the texts without noticing or without attempting to intervene against their main and most insulting problems (for one, that the "sources" quoted are disgusting propaganda pieces).

I have a better source mentioning the rhyme,and it provides an interesting context (apparently, the rhyme actually surfaced with the Iron Guard, or at least the Securitate thought so); I was thinking of including it as well in the PCR article - but then decided that it is a tad too specific (the entire article would provide just one reference in th article), and I'm trying to limit information to the very relevant (and to sources that provide detail on more than one sentence). On the other hand, that article and perhaps your source will come in handy at the Iron Guard article, which we should expand and reference in the future (feel free to add your source there already, in case you want to - I shall be visiting bearing many lovely gifts in due time). In any case, do hold on to that source - it is valuable on a number of articles.

Sorry, I owed you a reply on the Argetoianu issue (I still owe you replies on other issues, but perhaps they'll come up again in conversation). For the date used: it is reliable enough, IMO (in the sense that I see no reason why it shouldn't be - note that it gave a date for the arrest that was backed by another source, while the other source did not deal with the detention in depth enough for more to come up etc). The infoboxes: yes, I admit, the question marks are a bit annoying (consider that more potentates of the Ancient World have definite dates than articles on 20th cent. Ro politicians...); on the other hand, let's consider more templates in the future. I say keep variants in the sandbox - if I bump into info, I'll add it there and we'll eventually fill in the/more blanks. Dahn 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I burst open when I read the "C. Foamete" thing. Dahn 02:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool link

I've found this for you while fishing for a certain Constantin Burducea: [12]. The link at the top will lead you to a downloadable file - didn't look into it much, and don't know how much more material you can gather, but at least this article looks like good stuff for your BOR project (in case you're still working on that). In any case, I think it's worth holding on to. Dahn 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

C's family

i want objective sources... that article has an obvious ironic anti-ceausescu tone...Anonimu 13:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Link, etc

Hi, and sorry for the delay (I had some loose ends in some articles to deal with, as you may have noticed). I wish I had seen the expansion on the elections article earlier - I kept writing about elections in article, and didn't know that they were planned as separate articles. Couldn't tell you about the terminology: I noticed the preferred term for the 1946 elections was "general", and, in my mind, this means that they also elected mayors and councils (I never did bump into any result or even interest for that side of the elections, but what else could have been up for election?); now, I have absolutely no idea about whether other elections were superimposed on each other, or even if that counted in any way before 1938... In any event, we could redirect the 1946 reference to "general election" to "legislative election", if I turn out to be wrong, and keep the latter as the norm in naming. This brings up an interesting subject: I see no reason for the presidential elections to be separate from the parliamentary ones, in case we'll get data on those (at least, we should try). So, if or when we do, I suggest renaming 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 to "general".

Don't worry about not insulting my intelligence: you'd be surprised how many times God forgets me, and, if I did know that detail, it was only because you showed it to me before (not per se: you gave me a link to a google search were you had done this thing, and I figured out what happened, although I never remembered to use it).

Thanks for the link: as I have said, I'd like not to link one-time sources to there, especially if they are unrelated to the main topic. As it is, the reference in the text is limited to 1964, which was the climax, and to political prisoners. I plan to chew through Pe umerii lui Marx, then add detail from the other sources. I'll tweak the sentence for now. Dahn 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are right about the terminology. But don't you think we should have post-89 elections that coincided on th same page, under "general" (which is what they also were)? I cannot imagine any problem with fusing them, but i can see a lot of advantages.

We needn't do anything about the 1946 name in articles as it is. If we create it under a different title, we'll make all the redirects anyway (if anyone wants to take the trouble to make various mentions in articles coincide with the article title, as I have seen people do, fine by me - but I consider it superfluous except for some cases____well, I do have my own quirks in this area, so I shouldn't comment - consider that, when I mask a linked word, I always begin the part to the left of the "|" with a majuscule, although I know that I do not need to... but then again, there are those who edit an article solely to replace the majuscule with a minuscule to the left of the "|").

On the prisons issue, that is precisely what I was thinking. One of the reasons I am taking so much care in referencing the PCR article is to form a "bank" of details that would prove helpful in many other articles (but I'm guessing you know the process - I've seen you using it on Anonimu when he started spraying citneeded tags in there and you copypasted the reference from the Ploughmen's Front article). Dahn 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to go with the former. And, likesay, if we have cats for "legislative" and "presidential" to reflect present-day changes, we can just include fused articles for 1992-2004 in both. Dahn 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

my dumb joke

Hi Biru, sorry about my stupid little Vlad the Impaler joke. I honestly meant no smear against Romania, I was just irritated by Dr. Dan's sarcastic comments to Piotrus, and, well, every time I hear the word "impale" the first word-association that comes to mind is "Vlad". :) Seriously, no offense meant. K. Lástocska 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to worry about me ever hurling any insults at Romania or the Romanians--despite that I do believe there are parts of Transylvania that rightfully belong to Hungary, I actually like Romania a lot. I'm a patriot too but I can't stand people who think that loving your country means hating everyone else's. :)

btw, changing topics entirely, when were you thinking of going up for RfA again? K. Lástocska 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

An issue out of many

Hi. I did some of the work you were planning. Tell me how you plan to continue, because I want to get the terminology unified in related articles (and we should start considering categories, btw, where we have some Easter eggs to avoid). Dahn 17:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the really sad news for you is that, when I finish expansion on Romanian Communist Party, you get to copyedit it... O_o Dahn 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I used to live in the area as a kid, and played in its courtyard once or twice.

I fully agree with the format for the article. I wanted to have a terminology available: what you think the article title should be out of those possible (I could go with any), so that we may start [orange]linking in articles. This makes the creation of a category easier. (It is also easier, in an article like that, to work on individual articles first - all we'd have to do afterwards is summarize them,which would also ensure that the info is not contradicted elsewhere.)

The Calciu thing is a misunderstanding. I knew he was a Legionary; the source was there to cite that he had been in Piteşti, and not that he had been a Legionary. (It is like a source talking about, say, "Romania's Gheorghiu-Dej" without mentioning that he was a communist - one would not be prevented from paraphrasing into "a communist leader", since the info would not be controversial). Also, since I have created a link for him, that detail will pop up in there. So, it shouldn't be a problem. Dahn 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. I like the idea, but I guess my main concern is to make it bullet-proof - do you think that such a wide range would: a) successfully resist various takes on what repression is and what it is not (bearing in mind that I personally agree with you on this matter); b) clear the matter for murkier inclusions (the Antonescus and the rest of Transnistria criminals; the Ioanid Gang - where we may yet see a scandal over "nobody being able to prove that they were not bank robbers"; the ground between Vasile Luca, rotting in jail, and Ana Pauker, who escaped by sheer luck; if we ever reach that deep, those Iron Guard members who were already in jail in 1944 - many of whom I would not venture to call "politically repressed" for their initial time in jail, although I certainly don't approve of what either of the two regimes did to them).

Thanks for pointing out that "Human rights" article. Myself, I would break ground and "attack" all other periods - I'd say that I and Anonimu both have a justifiable bone to pick with Mr. Brătianu and Mr. Averescu. But this is the kind of thing you mostly build from leftovers (there is little neutral [ie: post-PCR] material that would deal with this specific topic through Romanian history, and I would picture most of it being very schematic; to get the details lined up and observe the weight due to each period, one would have to selectively go through many more sources). I suppose that you're considering the planned article on Communist Roamnia a "main article" section and link in that one - I would agree 100%. Dahn 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)