User talk:Biruitorul/Archive2

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations

Hallo! I do not want to talk much - all I wanted I've already said. The only question is: what was the purpose of this quarrel? I've heard from your part only insulting epithets like "useless", "borring" and, you favourite toy, "indiscriminate". My arguments (much more reasonnable) were not taken into consideration at all... I do not insist in KEEPING this Article. Not at all! I agree on MERGING it (as it is done on other Airlines' pages), but you are also against... How can it be? How can WE be? How can we collaborate, coexiste if we are so strong against each other? "Any article we please", "any editor we like", "anything we want"... Anyway, I'm welcome by Sandstein (he is the chief here?), but I think: if it worth to be an Editor here when from the very beginning you are attacked by all others... Thanx, Dimitree —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

Talk:List of Romanian communists

What's your take on this? Dahn 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

HI ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm>.......... what are we talking about?

Birger Dahlerus

Hi there; you may or may not be aware that there has been excessively extensive debate as to whether the correct spelling is "Goering" or "Göring"; also between "Goebbels" or "Göbbels". Whatever you like is fine by me; the community consensus was that both were equally correct.--Anthony.bradbury 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, different German documents seem to use both spellings at different times, but, as I say both are fine with me. Thank you for the compliment.--Anthony.bradbury 23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Niyazov's wife

...Jewish? Please provide a source(s). KazakhPol 03:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow... no I believe you and the adjective can stay, but it seems to weird to me that his wife is Jewish and yet the only religions allowed (officially) are Islam and Russian Orthodox Christianity. I had never heard this before... Thanks, KazakhPol 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am curious, what is your take on the situation right now? Western media has been gloom and doom[1] about the transfer of power, but I do not see street protests. The outlets are reporting color revolution, but I'm not seeing one. KazakhPol 03:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. and if the Americans are smart they will try to secure a base to pressure the Persians. Undoubtedly, with the new administration, India, China, and Korea will want to ensure their investments. It will be very interesting indeed. KazakhPol 04:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The new great game

I hope you like what I've done with The new great game. Thanks for pointing this out. I will work on this for a while. KazakhPol 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sărbători Fericite!

Roamata/sarbatorifericite

Help

Hello Biruitorul. I have noticed you are very good in English. I am now rewriting/creating two larger articles. Would you mind if I'd ask you for help with copyediting, grammar etc.? Thank you. - Darwinek 14:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It is Zaolzie article. I hope you will like it. :) I have spent literally whole day rewriting and expanding it. Next larger article I plan to start is "Polish minority in the Czech Republic". Firstly I will publish it in my sandbox before moving it to the main namespace. I will start writing it in few days, I must end it till 1 January, it is my New Year resolution :) and in January I have a huge amount of learning to university. Take care and again, thank you. - Darwinek 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yule greetings

Hi, and sorry for the delay - as well as for the fact that I did not express my holiday greetings in time (don't worry about reciprocity, if you were planning to - I'm not really observant myself). I was quite pissed off at some moves on wiki that I am required to deal with, and limited my time on wiki to some stuff I wanted and some stuff I needed to do. Got back just in time to notice your excellent article on the Bărăgan deportations - thank you, we're getting closer to the larger picture.

To answer your question: yes, I've tried, but success was minimal (one of my cousins may have made some minor edits on rowiki, but I'm not really sure). The mail problem is actually my net provider's (or rather, the net provider considered I had a problem) - since we're all on holiday, I couldn't unfortunately solve it whether I want to or not (otherwise, my connection is through Yahoo).

'Nyways, if we don't hear from each other until January 1st, let me wish you a the happiest of new years. Dahn 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you.

I also believe that the specific example for the Canal was the White Sea-Baltic, but I did not find any references that would say that exactly. I fully agree on the Socor issue. Since he is the only one detailing the issues, I quickly glanced over what could be added on the spot, and thought I would leave geographical details et al to you (I'm not delegating, but it seems like you have the clearest idea about where details should fit to each other, since you are planning to review the entire repressive system in an article; for example, I left out mention of the camps, as I did not know what nomenclature you wish to adopt - in case you list them, I will adopt your nomenclature as a guideline, as all change in one place is likely to need replication in a rapidly expanding number of articles).

For the "List of Transylvanians", I think any inclusions could work. IMO, there is no way in which that list could get too big; sure, let them list all regional black metal singers if they want to - the criterion for the list itself is still tight enough (unlike the "Romanians" one, destined to go on for ever). Myself, I have stopped adding to the list, and concentrate on the category (the latter is also more objective, given that it implies people had to be born in the region). If anything, we could section the list by some criterion (county, profession, ethnicity... though I'd rather not pick "ethnicity", for several reasons).

Thank you for the FA vote and the kind words.Hopefully, I'll deal with the entries inconsistencies in the near future. Dahn 12:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, btw: let's congratulat ourselves on the Constantinescu/Bărăgan first. Both are not just about, Romania, they are about Communist Romania... weird. Dahn 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

On December 27, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bărăgan deportations, 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.

Thank you for your contributions!! Nishkid64 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for improving Zaolzie article. I have introduced basic explanation on Volksliste issue there. Answering to your questions:

1. Better map wouldn't be provided in near future. There are some better but not copyright free. There are also a part of books (as the current one), so it would be problem the obtain them. The current one is good that it clearly shows the border changes. It can be also introduced that a part annexed in 1938 by Poland is de facto Zaolzie territory.
2. Yes, there are and were larger and important towns. Karviná, Fryštát (then town itself, now a part of the former; article still missing), Třinec, Český Těšín, Orlová and Bohumín. The most populous town was built by the communists in 1955: Havířov.
3. As stated in the article, the territory was mainly industrial. The vast majority of population was employed in heavy industry.
4. To the repetetiveness of "the/this area", you are right. It is because this territory shouldn't be named "Zaolzie" regarding pre-1920 issues, as it was "created" in 1920.

How about adding some current photos (towns and nature) ?

Again, thank you very much! - Darwinek 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The last one

Hello. I have created the Polish minority in the Czech Republic article. It is surely the last big one on my side. Parts of the text are almost the same as in Zaolzie article. I will appreciate though if you will help. Other related smaller stubby articles are PZKO, Głos Ludu and Kongres Polaków. Thank you very much! - Darwinek 19:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Hello there. Regarding your president and VP templates, we should always encourage enthusiastic editors, and I am particularly like those who are enthusiastic about editing Indonesia-related articles. But, it is considered poor wiki form (wikiqette?) to simply re-revert your changes without explanation after someone has removed them. Actually, I don't think your templates are bad, they have do have some value but have you noticed that there are now two templates there? The advantage of yours compared to the other one is that (1) it is a complete list and (2) it looks a whole better - more slim. The disadvantage is that does not show the chronological order that the other does (but maybe this is OK) and it doesn't show the president at the time. Unfortunately, i don't think there is place for both. I will ask a few more INdonesia editors to comment here. kind regards Merbabu 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess all i am saying is that the template is good, but we can't have both. We need to choose or somehow combine (which would take some intelligence to do smoothly and technical skill). Merbabu 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that adding too many templates does unnecessarily clutter pages, such as in George W. Bush. The pages in question seem like a borderline case. Would be great if someone merged the best aspects of both templates into a single instance. (Caniago 06:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

Your templates are very useless, only to clutter article pages with unnecessary boxes!! Those templates are exactly equal with Category, no additional navigational information from your templates. Please stop adding those templates! — Indon (reply) — 09:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I have removed your request for a third opinion as more than two editors are involved in this debate. There are other steps in the dispute resolution process which are appropriate for disputes involving more than two editors, I would suggest pursuing those if you still disagree. Seraphimblade 15:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi there,

I saw your post on KhoiKhoi's talk page. With out diving into to great detail, please consider the following:

• Is it possible that your template is an un-intended criticism of an already existing template? If so, someone worked hard on it, and perhaps they're a little offended.
• Thank you for being bold and creating this template. Did you offer it to anybody before you put it in an article?
• Please consider that there are several Wikiprojects. Is there a Wikiproject for Indonesia?

These are just three of the ideas that I have. I believe there is also a procedure for templates. Perhaps try some links at Help:templates. Hope this helps. Nina Odell 19:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. I also see that you're very experienced with templates. Consider approaching Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia and offering your template for review. I would also suggest a heartfelt (or not:) ) apology for any miscommunication or toe-stepping. Happy New Year, Nina Odell 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As you're considering it, please also consider the number of people in Indonesia who have access to a computer, know the English language, and know about Wikipedia. I don't have any idea about all three. Nina Odell 20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about the templates

Hi, I see that you have asked WP:3O and other administrator's talk page to discuss about the {{IndonesianPresidents}} and {{IndonesianVPs}} templates and my recent removals. Instead of gathering 3rd opinions, why don't we talk about it first? Honestly, I'm not against a template, I love templates, but they should give additional information, for instance, navigations (WP:NAV) or a concise summary (WP:IBT). Looking at the two templates you've created, I believe it is exactly equal with category pages or a list article (see List of Presidents of Indonesia). The articles have used {{Succession box}}, because they give ordering information who precede/suceed whom before/after the current article's subject. So, if you can convince me that the two templates give additional information, then I would be glad to put them back in the articles. For example, if you can put some kind of timeline bar in the template of how long somebody served as president/vice president, then it would be very very nice, because a reader can grab, for instance, that Soeharto has served 32 years, compared to Habibie for only 2 years. We can then eliminate the dull {{Succession box}}. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 00:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that more and more people create templates that only cluttering an article. One example with Indonesia article, in which previously a lot of templates of any organizations that Indonesia has been involved with are included. Then somebody put templates of seas, oceans and continents of which Indonesia is geographically related with. Those templates are just a transformation from a category page that the only advantage is one-click closer, not more than that. I agree that your template looks nice, but I then would expect somebody else, who knows, might put other similar templates, such as IndonesianMinistries, IndonesianPoliticians, IndonesianGenerals, etc. To your questions that why do other countries allow it, but not Indonesia? Well, I don't know. I'm not an editor of the other countries. It is not in the WP guidelines/policies that if you succeeded to include a template in one article, then you can freely put similar templates to other articles. The sea templates, that I've told you previously, had been included in a lot of articles before Indonesia, but it was TFD'ed after, coincidently, Indonesia's editors and also New Zealand's were complaining about them. — Indon (reply) — 01:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Biruitorul, it's a bad time for me, my mistake. It's 2:14 am after the New Year's eve and I'm sooo sleepy. I will response your further comments later. Oh, Happy New Year!! — Indon (reply) — 01:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't think we are in great debate on contentious issues here that you need mediation. All right if you really insist to put all of those of your templates in all countries, then be my guest. However please remove redundancies, okay? When you insert them, eliminate the {{Succession box}} also, so that you don't look like cluttering the article with similar templates. I probably want to modify templates that you created to include also timeline information. — Indon (reply) — 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 07:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

I agree with you; it is useful to have the template on the article, rather than linking to some list. I guess if a compromise hasn't been reached yet, you might try making a request for mediation... Khoikhoi 02:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Baltia

Hi Biruitorul,

You're welcome for the nomination. I've looked through the German version and added a few details to yours, but all in all it looks pretty good to me.

--Carabinieri 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Oz

I think you are correct on both counts. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Comparison Baltic and Slavic Languages

Here is the text you removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balto-Slavic_languages&diff=98114864&oldid=98114541

please write down what you think you want to have worded differently- Thanks - Labbas 2 January 2007

SVG??

Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. Anyway, please resond on my user-talk page. Thanks. --Green-Dragon 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A delayed answer

La Mulţi Ani and sorry for the delay (I wasn't at home for much of this period, I used the net only sporadically, I was involved in other issues, and kept adding tiny bits to this answer as time permitted me). I'm sorry that the discussion may have had unpleasant and unintended consequences, but, for better or worse, I stand by my arguments about the topic itself.

1. it was not my intention to indicate that I was in any way responsible for I was merely saying that I will not be enjoying collaboration with a person who takes such a a stand (since wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and since I wanted to let people know precisely that, no matter what the quality of their other edits is, I would be having a hard time encouraging them to contribute more - Holocaust revisionism/Holocaust denial is not an opinion I would tend to condone). Note that I was not speaking for anybody else, and I did not intend it as a warning (it was merely an explanation of just how I find such discussions troubling and in bad taste). Allow me to point out that, in between "No one is indispensable" and "we need all the contributors we can get", you are contradicting yourself - the nature of this contradiction leads me to believe that my original comment was not as obscure as you depicted it.

2. I do not believe that Lupu was vouched for by the Conference, and I do not believe that his status prevents his conclusions from being flawed (I doubt that the Conference either controlled him or prevented him from publicizing his "finds"). The final stage of the dispute is here:

In March Corvin Lupu, a university professor in Sibiu, published an article denying the Holocaust. In August the Federation of Jewish Communities, MCA Romania, and the Association of Romania's Jewish Victims of the Holocaust filed a complaint with the prosecutor's office in Sibiu against Lupu for denying the Holocaust in the country, citing his violation of a 2002 decree forbidding such actions. In October the prosecutor's office decided against prosecuting Lupu on the grounds that his action could not be interpreted as a crime as defined by the government decree. An appeal filed by the organizations was also rejected in November.

This evidences the scale of the action, and I believe that, if his status did not cover him against judicial complaint and almost universal criticism from his peers, it should not allow him to be used as "evidence" here.

3. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that Lupu's article is informative,or, for that matter, even logical. I would also like you to reconsider your verdict about criticism of Lupu's stand (Cornea asked for Lupu to face the implications of the law in place, as he interpreted it, and this not because it is the man's opinion, but because Lupu misuses an official capacity - and may possibly be misusing his status as an educator, which is indeed alarming). Also: while there may be no monopoly on historical truth, if there is but something very closely resembling it, then Corvin Lupu is almost as far away from it as possible. There is, clearly, a legitimacy in stating what the truth is, and I cannot think what would be more legitimate than the consensus of historians, a Commission invested with power by a state authority, various international committees of undeniable prestige, the vast majority of political forces in Romania, and several contemporary accounts (including, alas, Eichmann's comments). And, btw, one cannot ever say "x is wrong, therefore y is right", so much of the debate is not about how right Wiesel was, but about how wrong Corvin is - which is made painfully obvious by Lupu himself when he asks "how come as many as 400,000 were counted?", while he denies that any where ever killed unjustifiably and on purpose (which means that he is mixing two very different arguments, only one of which is yours).

Almost all of Lupu's arguments are untenable, from what I have seen (granted, I have not read all). Aside from the euphemisms he uses to hide behind when talking about the Holocaust in general, and aside from his borrowing of generic sophistry from the Holocaust denial pool, not one point I've seen him make is anything but speculation,and, as stated, most of them are not even logical speculation. From what I have seen, he talks about how criticism should be over because Jewish banks are richer than ever, about how virtually all Jews (including, supposedly, rabbis and children) are responsible for resisting Romanian presence (which, ahem, came from a state that had withdrawn their citizenship, had exposed them to violent persecution, had allied itself to the Nazis, had come together with the German army, and had adopted anti-Semitic propaganda as the norm) and the rest were necessarily criminals, about how all Jews were "saved" from retaliations through deportation, about how Jews were expected to resign to their fate and trust the good intentions of Antonescu, about how ghettos are justified for keeping children and adults together etc. As we have apparently agreed before, all comments about "what the Jews did" post-1945 are (I would also wager to say that Lupu's insistence on using them is an extra indication that his argument is largely motivated by a frustration I don't share - and don't want to share). It seems also superfluous to expand on another obvious facts: merely being a communist does not mean others are allowed to kill you. With some likely exceptions, neither does resisting what is, for all purposes involved, a foreign invasion.

Lupu would also like to have us believe that it is a Jewish initiative and scholarship which defines and insists on talking about the Holocaust (in Romania or elsewhere), when, in fact, the vast majority of historians not only agree with them, but also contribute to studying the matter (in Romania, where the topic is still sadly avoided, I can still cite Cioroianu, Pippidi, Oprea, and some others; it is imperative to note that, while the number of professionals directly involved in the debate is relatively small, the vast majority of professionals reject the very fabric of Lupu's arguments. This is, of course, an aside, because Lupu's implicit theory about the subjectivity of Jews is utter bullshit. Goma reproduces much of this flawed and ultimately insulting reasoning (btw, his questions are sterile, since he bases them on fallacies - answering Goma would be accepting his premises, the latter being a thing worth avoiding).

As stated by all those whom Lupu contests, the Transnistria issue was very obscured, from the moment of its occurrence and until this very day. "Why did this happen?", you ask. Well:

• Let us first note that the outside world at large had spoken about it during the 50 years of Communism when we did not; admitting this, let us also give them the benefit of the doubt about not being able to approximate numbers,and about not having the details available. Let us also note that a lot of the evidence about the Holocaust itself was furnished by the German bureaucrats - this was unparalleled inside Romania, and, furthermore, with all that data, the margin of error in approximating at the Nazi German scale is enough to engulf the even most serious of estimates for Romania (which should stablish what an insufficient record may generate in data). On a TVR1 series exposing the Romanian Holocaust, I've heard several accounts of Romanian Army officers storming into villages, asking "who of you is a Bolshevik, and who is a Jew?", then shooting the people who were pointed out by the crowd. Who could ever do anything other than roughly estimate how many people were killed in this manner?

• Communist Romania hid the past. Whether it was with casual indifference, whether with will to erase, it never bothered to check the data. Note that, just as Auschwitz was kept secret for a while after its discovery - since Stalin had presented Nazism as a tool of class conflict, and found himself faced with redefining the dogma. This mentality stuck with the Communists in the Eastern Bloc, and was for sure a contributing factor to the anti-Cosmopolitan campaign (ever wondered why a lot of Jewish Communists were required to change their names during the 40s and 50s?). Presenting it as a racial issue also made problematic the vicious campaign against Romanian Zionists, and allowed Jews, as a nation, to have some merit, as well as some identity inside and outside the Romanian nation. To speak about Stalin's anti-Semitism in this context is probably not that relevant, but it may be worthy to note that, in East Germany, the Soviets actually made use of a disestablished Nazi camp.

• Add to this the fact that the PCR has tried to present itself as the cohesive representative of all society; it was not easy to do so, especially since, with the exception of Kishinevsky, all captured Jewish PCR members went straight to Transnistria (noteworthy that the death toll of ethnic Romanians imprisoned in Tg. Jiu et al was, well, zero). IMO, this should also cast aside all theory that Transnistria was merely another stage of repression of Communists - since, aside from the notorious fact that very few of those imprisoned were Communists, only a relatively small part of Communists, all of them Jewish, was sent to Transnistria. After the late 1970s, it also became imperative that Romania become the absolute good guy in a conflict with Hungary (tons of books spoke in detail about the Hungarian Holocaust, which they connected, spuriously, with the plight of Romanians in Northern Transylvania); none spoke about Transnistria.

In fact, the only pre-1989 mention I could find of a Transnistrian camp, namely Vapniarka, was in a Magazin Istoric of 1968 or 1970 (in relation to the defrost?), where it was dropped en passant as "one of places where our comrades were imprisoned" (the article was some Communist's memoir). It was never indicated that inmates were Jewish...

Let me add: all mention of national prestige leaves me cold. Even if it would not, I would still have to say that it was gone in this instance the moment it was established that Romania took part in the Holocaust, not the moment in which added numbers came to trouble some of us. Lupu is spuriously "adding" to his point by delving into that issue, and there is nothing scientific to be found in there. Dahn 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Herman Baltia, was selected for DYK!

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herman Baltia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Poland

Hello do you know where I find the Infobox Poland? I would like to add some parts like ISO-Code etc in the template. TX Fujicolor 10:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

surse topal

Surse despre Topal:

http://www.e-democracy.md/comments/political/20021002/

http://www.alegeri.md/previous-elections/

Acestea sunt surse credibile şi cred că le puteţi pune pe pagina în limba engleză. Ce user aveţi în Wikipedia în limba română? Cu stimă. Cezarika1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.124.113.47 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Barnstar

		The Romanian Barnstar of National Merit
		Long overdue. Dahn 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thank you. On the Lupu topic: I certainly agree that all disagreements over debatable things (such as numbers) ought to be adequately presented, but Lupu's piece is merely unscientific and inflammatory. On the Băsescu issue, I'll answer on that page sometime soon (I'll present two proposals, and personally could accept either of them). About the Priests' Union: I remembered it from the link I found and forwarded to you back when we were discussing controversies involving the Church (you have archived it since, I think). I just looked over it at the time, but it seemed to be pretty substantial on this topic (there's also a bit about it in Cioroianu, but in a section I haven't looked through much - beyond what I used for Amicii URSS). Dahn 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I looked through your archive and can't seem to find the link. Do you remember perchance remember where I placed it? (I remember googleing it by accident, and I have trouble finding it again on the web. Dahn 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comm. Rom.

Hi, and thank you very much. On the issue at hand: both versions have problems (as far as I can tell, the original version was less problematic). You are obviously right about the template, and it needs a quicker seeing to. I cannot look into all of it now; in case you want to revert to the former version for now, I'll uphold your move (just tell me if you need me to, as I'm not watching that article). In case you don't, we could just let Anonimu enjoy himself until I pay that article a prolonged visit (and perhaps add some tags as to what the problems are). Dahn 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Righteous. It is however shameful that Dacodava's articles are still ruled out as NPOV (when written like goddamn manifestos), and that admins are not competent enough to notice what he did. Dahn 20:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Alas. I see they have begun to be tagged, which I hope means that their supremacy is questioned. Dahn 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Congress Poland dates

I have only recently started reading up on that period of history, so I cannot answer the question with full certainity. My current knowledge indicates that there were no legal acts cancelling CP so in theory it existed till WWI, but in practice it was abandoned by Russian Empire after January Uprising, and replaced by the Vistulan Country. I am not exactly sure how this worked; when working on Namiestnik... article I discovered a part of it: for example, no new namiestniks were nominated, and governor-generals held the power instead (contrary to the constitution).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry James' humanism

The reason I reverted the category "American humanists" was that James didn't identify himself as a humanist, and would likely have rejected any philosophical label as irrelevant to his work and too confining for an imaginative artist. James' work includes things like The Altar of the Dead and Is There a Life After Death?, which would be very hard to fit into any non-trivial definition of humanism. And many of his ghost stories hardly show the kind of rational secularism typical of humanist thought.

James was far too flexible in his imaginative work to be pigeonholed into a philosophical category. The closest he ever came to such a classification, to my knowledge, was when he told his brother William that he broadly agreed with WJ's pragmatism. But that might well have been more brotherly courtesy than a serious philosophical commitment. HJ was always an artist first, and he seems to have distrusted all philosophical movements, including humanism or any other ism.

Also, the category "American humanists" seems like an overly broad group of people with little in common except American nationality. For these reasons, I believe the category is more misleading than illuminating when applied to James. Casey Abell 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

James wasn't conventionally religious, but he certainly wasn't consistently anti-religious. In The Altar of the Dead, for instance, his hero meditates on the goodness of churches:

"It was a temple of the old persuasion, and there had evidently been a function--perhaps a service for the dead; the high altar was still a blaze of candles. This was an exhibition he always liked, and he dropped into a seat with relief. More than it had ever yet come home to him it struck him as good there should be churches."

Towards the end of the story, James' protagonist says to the woman who was previously estranged from him: "Then you COULD come? God sent you!...God sent me too, I think. I was ill when I came, but the sight of you does wonders."

Now, James was hardly always supportive of religion, or at least of the "old persuasion". The closing chapters of The American, for instance, are marked by Newman's sharp animus against Catholicism, which his creator seems to share to some extent. (Though James' view of Catholicism in The Altar of the Dead is far more positive.) The crucial point is that James wasn't consistently supportive or hostile when it came to philosophical/religious systems. That's why pegging him as a "humanist" - or an "idealist" or a "materialist" or any other variant of philosophical or religious belief - seems so far wide of the mark. James was always ready to use such beliefs as "local color" of a kind for his fiction, but he never professed adherence to any particular system of philosophy or religion, including humanism. Casey Abell 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There's already a comment in the article on The Altar of the Dead about this cubject: "Although James was not religious in any conventional sense, the story shows a deep spirituality in its treatment of mortality and the transcendent power of unselfish love." This pretty much sums up James' "belief system", such as it was. Since The Altar of the Dead is normally rated very highly among his stories, I'll bring the lede paragraph into the "Shorter narratives" section of the main article, suitably edited to maintain the flow of the discussion.

As for the punctuation question, this was actually discussed on the talk page (now archived). My personal preference is to avoid extra punctuation whenever possible, which means not using the quotation marks for the tales, but only italics. Other editors have put in the quotation marks, though. It gets really complicated because few if any printed or web sources use quotation marks for the longer tales, like The Turn of the Screw or The Aspern Papers. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the quotation marks for all the tales and just use italics. But others apparently disagree. Casey Abell 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Latvia

Hi, I left you answer on my talk page -- Xil/talk 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Arvid Pardo, was selected for DYK!

On January 17, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arvid Pardo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alexandru Ivasiuc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexandru Ivasiuc.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re

Hi. You are entirely right, and I'm sorry. It was really difficult to tell who did what to that article. Dahn 07:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Students in 1956

Thank you for translating my Romanian article on student protests in 1956. I must confess that I am surprised by the speed of your reaction. I was not aware that it would generate much interest but thought that the struggle of that generation should not be forgotten. I am grateful for your translation which makes this information available also to English speeking audiences.

I took the liberty of changing the tags on the pictures. They are from police files and therefore not subject to copyright. I have made some corrections to the Romanian version. They are not essential, however there are some correction in the names of the students and to the Universities where they were attending courses. I will transfer these corrections to the English version.

Thank you again.

Afil 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kewl. I'm putting it on hold for the moment though, as I am about to hand the world an article on the 1946 elections (which I remember promising a long time ago). At first glance, I have some doubts about Mrs. Filotti's picture being copyrightless, and I think the guys' pictures need to clarify their source (not just "from police files", but "where I found them"). Dahn 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Right on both. About the name: as I have said, I'll go with the nomenclature you guys decide upon, but I'll start it under the tile I had unwittingly imposed - I suppose I should not create a redirect to it from "Romanian legislative election, 1946", right? (It will make it much harder to move to there in case we decide to do so.) Dahn 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty much sure they did not ever have separate elections for Chamber and Senate (the terms vary only because cabinets would rush in to call them when they were sure they could win...). What I can tell you for sure is that, in 1946, there was no longer a Senate to vote for (they had discovered it was "reactionary"). Dahn 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They repealed that part of the constitution. Btw, "a few hours"? If Anonimu was a grenade, you'd be dead. :) Dahn 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Or... Dahn 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Interesting. Unfortunately, a large part of that appears to disregard copyright legislation. But it's worth a look into. I'm guessing that, in theory, it's good material for the DYK, and for this cat ;). Dahn 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think of rowiki as my flea market. I go in there once in a while, pick up something that has never really worked, clean it up, fix it, showcase it, and turn it into a nice article that would also be interesting to foreigners interested in the local flavor. Dahn 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice and a breath a fresh air, but still not up to enwiki FA standards... Dahn 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. And, of course, you noted the distinction between Băsescu, the Private Citizen who summoned the private Parliament to address them as a private citizen, drawing conclusions from the Private Citizen's Commission Report in front of a lot of private citizens, all of them on holiday, and Băsescu, the President. Thanks for your edit, btw. Dahn 22:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the initial picture of Mrs. Filotti because it did not fit with the article and actually it was taken at a different date than when the events took place. And at that time she was definitely not laughing, she had a nervous breakdown. As far as the other pictures are concernet they were taken from the issue of the România liberă which is mentioned in the bibliography. However the article shows clearly that they are from the police files. I am not sure if Dahn wants additional information on the pictures to be posted. As far as Mrs. Filotti's picture is concerned, I had the privilege of knowing her personally and took the pictures myself. So in this case there should be no doubts about the copyright.

I would have liked to post more pictures of the students, but unfortunately I did not find any. I can only hope that if people read the article they will add some more.

The special number of the Romania liberă I quoted also has some information on the students in Timişoara and Cluj. If you are interested I can send you a copy. I can scan the articles and I can post them on this site (I hope it works) or otherwise send them if this site does not accept them. Finalizing the corrections might take a day or two.

There is a single issue on which I disagree with you, and that is the independence of Hawaii. But I don't think this can evolve into a dispute. And I understand your point: as a monarchist, it is to be expected that you support the restauration of monarchy in Hawaii. I am also a supporter of the restauration of the Brazilian empire. They would be far better off than with their present president.

So keep me posted if you need the information.

Afil 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was that it is customary to indicate where you got them from in their own summaries. They are very likely PD, but it is still helpful if you add an indication for verifiability (otherwise, it looks as if you are claiming that you scanned their files). Dahn 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fun messaging with you. I'll also prepare my ammo (or ammunition if you prefer).

As we have no more feud, and as you are in the UK and I am on the other shore of the Atlantic, I agree to a new alliance against our new common enemy. With a name like your's, how can we not be victorious.

Afil 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

'46

Thanks. I have added the name of the legislature, and thanks for pointing that out (it was already alluded to in a Groza quote, but I didn't put two and two together). I couldn't tell you what the system was for sure: the only electoral info I gathered and added was about discarding the majority bonus. There are more photos in Dosarele Istoriei, but I still haven't managed to get to a scan (it's on my to do list). I didn't ad the percentages because, frankly, I could not compute them... (I know, I suck at Maths); I was about to, but then realized that I'm too prone to err.

Intersting link, I'll hold on to it. Dahn 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'll add them in. Dahn 22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea... (Indeed, great article. Should I nominate it for FA or do you want to?) Dahn 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

TangataWhenua.com

Kia ora - I noted that you proposed a entry I created for deletion due to non-notable advertising. I'm interested in finding out how to rectify this. The organisation I am discussing is significant because it provides alternative, web-based (eNewsletter) information and news coverage to an indigenous (Maori) audience. It provides an indigenous Maori perspective relevant to indigenous Maori issues. In New Zealand this is rare, in fact TangataWhenua.com is the only web-based media organisation that is doing this.

In an environment that promotes Trusts and NGOs (as opposed to companies and partnerships) the development of an indigenous business framework in this context is to be commended, and is therefore note-worthy. What more can I do to ensure this entry continues? Looking forward to your commments (hopefully you have time) :) Atutahi 09:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the significance of such an organisation. A digital newsletter, created by Maori for Maori is one step (of many) in the journey towards self-determination. Information that is sourced, researched, written and developed by Maori is more valuable, relevant and useful to the Maori community itself.

Take for instance West Papua, having news and information created and developed by West Papuans themselves is infinitely more valuable then content that is created by Indonesians FOR West Papuas. Considering also that Maori communities are only beginning to have access to the internet is another reason why organisation such as TangataWhenua.com and AoCafe for example are so important and necessary to the overall development of Maoridom in a digital age, I think that this type of attitude underestimates the value of this medium in terms of indigenous self-determination... What are your thoughts? Atutahi 10:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I thank you for not proposing a speedy deletion and giving me the time to improve the entry (assuming I can develop a more robust rational). Atutahi 10:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd make one final point, which a friend highlighted - The name TangataWhenua.com may indeed create confusion in that it could lead one to think that the focal point is wholly commercial. "However to the trained eye - i.e. one who has an understanding of indigenous development it is worth it's entry on the grounds of special consideration in terms of indigenous self-determination and self-expression." Atutahi 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Kia ora me ki roto i kotahitanga (be well, in unity).

Having looked at it, I definitely don't think the article qualifies for speedy deletion anymore (the old version was basically a cut & paste of part of their web page). If you want to try AfD, of course, feel free. However, if this really is a pioneering venture of the Maori, I think it's something noteworthy and should probably be kept. Mangojuice^talk 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The '46 Map / Harta cu '46

Hi, I'm working on boundaries now, and I hope today a new version would be ready. Many thanks for notice me the problem. Cheers,  Cornel Ilie – my talk 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

Greetings

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner (talk, email) 02:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that I didn't write the note as a complaint, but as the gentlest of reminders. Here, for example,[2] it'd be hard for someone like me to find what exactly was changed. It's not just you, either, the next edit was the same. I think minor edits especially deserve a summary, so vandal fighters can just skip over them (I've seen one vandal who's left a misleading edit summary in all my time here). Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 02:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverting

Sorry, I missed that change. Guettarda 13:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rulers.org isn't bad, it's just unreferenced. It's a good place to start looking, certainly. I remember when Hassanali became president. I don't recall if there was a period between Clarke leaving office and Hassanali being installed. It wasn't something that drew much attention, not like 2003 when they had to extend Robinson's term. There was controversy, coming close to a constitutional crisis, when Clarke made appointments on his own just before leaving office (the President is required to "consult" with the Prime Minister, but the constitution never said he had to listen to what the PM advised, although that had always been the assumption...the courts ruled in favour of the President). Anyway, I found a newspaper commentary which seems to be saying that Clarke made one of these appointments the day before Hassanali was installed, which would suggest he was still in office until the transition, but the sentance isn't very clear.

What's more important is that no one in Trinidad seems to consider Williams as part of the sequence of Presidents, so I don't think we should. If we start counting Acting Presidents it gets really messy. I don't feel comfortable doing so. Guettarda 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the President of the Senate is appointed Acting President whenever the President leaves the country. For example, Hassanali was in England in 1990 during the Jamaat al Muslimeen coup attempt, and Emmanuel Carter was acting President and declared the State of Emergency, etc. IIRC, Ganace Ramdial acted as President while Robinson was ill for an extended period. Every President of the Senate since 1976 has acted as President - Wahid Ali, Michael J. Williams, Emmanuel Carter, Ganace Ramdial and Linda Baboolal, probably at least once a year. Guettarda 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: A couple of points (state legislatures)

re: User_talk:Yellowdesk#A couple of points (state_legislatures)
Yes a list of senate presidents (and house speakers if there is none now) for Massachusetts is desirable.
I think ultimately, in parallel to the various ordinal U.S. Congress pages, it is worthwhile to have similar ordinal state legislature pages with complete listings of its members. A corollary to your argument about lists being distracting, is that the list of legislators on 110th_United_States_Congress should be dropped because it is distracting there, which I think you'd probably agree is not desirable. Consider the state legislature pages transitional pages to future improvement. Because of article histories, the recent listings for the Massachusetts General Court won't be lost, if the history does not end up in a strange place because of page name changes and splits, so it is recoverable. I am agnostic about whether there should be RED names for all of the legislators without biographies, or simply black-type listings, and I don't think a RED listing needs to imply that an article will ever be written, but rather an invitation to the interested editor to write one. I think it is worth having the detailed listing, and it's a challenging set of information to track down, and hence worth making accessible--over time--in wikipedia. Remember that nearly every famous politician was once a humble town officer, or state legislator, and it is usefull to understand who his/her peers were in legislative chambers. -- Yellowdesk 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to check over Massachusetts_Senate_Delegations as another kind of example. -- Yellowdesk 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. Yes, "Ordinal General Court" pages are desirable. And have "Current General Court" redirect to the presently-in-office-Ordinal General Court page. I would be inclined not to split off the list of legislators, for the near term, until several Ordinal General Court pages/lists exist--how about 10 years of lists? In general, I think it's a good Idea. Let me check the Georgia example again, and possibly give more comments. -- Yellowdesk 13:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fryštát/Frysztat

Hello. Separate data aren't unfortunately available :(. The point is that after "coal fever" thousands of gastarbeiters from Bohemia and Slovakia arrived to the area and thus local Polish minority had dropped percentually. Assimilation, Czechization from 1920 to 1938 and Germanization during the war also contributed negatively to drop not only in percents but also in numbers. I am supposed to borrow a book covering the numbers of all Censuses from 1920 to 1991 in all municipalities. I have seen it already one time and it is quite interesting and sad. Also history of this small part of Europe is very complicated. Take the village of Hrčava as a nice example. Until 1920 it was a part of the Polish village of Jaworzynka. Exactly all citizens of Hrčava were Poles. After 1920 division of area between CS and PL, Hrčava fell to Czechoslovavkia and in 1921 CS Census a vast majority of citizens declared Czech nationality :). In 1939 Census almost all citizens (same people) declared Silesian nationality :) and many of them were sent to Wehrmacht later. Today almost all citizens of Hrčava declare Czech nationality but majority of them bear Polish surnames. :) - Darwinek 23:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Note also that those more than 5,000 are self-declared Poles. Many, many other Ethnic Poles declare Czech nationality. - Darwinek 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for cleaning up Demographics article ;). - Darwinek 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your response. All three articles you created are of very high quality, I especially like that Soviet case and John T. Ford but I would suggest you all to nominate for DYK :). Btw I have expanded my Polish minority GA article of section concerning education, maybe you would like to check that. Currently I work on expanding somehow articles about towns and villages in Zaolzie and also on creating short articles about great persons of our region, still many many to go. I must also thank you for creating that Slovak navigational template, it is very fine, there was nothing to repair. - Darwinek 10:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

4 Devils edit

I think that was a good edit for my "4 Devils" stub. I have to admit that a bit of POV did creep in there---it's the most mourned lost film.....by me personally. That was a good one, Biruitorul, and written perfectly. Storyliner 18:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

4 Devils redirect

Yes, we should blank it and use "4 Devils" as a redirect, by all means. I didn't notice the other article until my little stub was up, of course. For a moment there, when you said that "Four Devils has existed since October," I thought the film had been found until I realized what you meant. I was mesmerized by the silent-to-sound transitional films with Gaynor at the huge Janet Gaynor retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art a few months ago. I emerged with the realization that Peter Bogdanovich is right that cinema's height wasn't 1939, as most people think, but that period from 1927 to 1929 when the silents (an utterly different art form, needless to say) reached their pinnacle. Storyliner 19:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Hello. I have made some changes to that Czechoslovak PMs template. Good work. Anyway, I am a student of political science and european studies, so I guess I will get back to that constitutions etc. sooner or later :).
You are absolutely right, as for Roma people, it is same problem here, officially a few thousands, real number more than 200,000. Serious problem is that in many towns ghettoes slowly but surely appear. As for Us, well today it is unstoppable process. Our community is the second oldest in average in the country (after Germans), high intermarriage rate, low birth rate etc. I think we are masters in assimilation. In the interwar period it was quite obvious when you take the politics of "democratic Czechoslovak government". Most of Poles were workers, miners and metallurgists, and when they fire you from work cause of your ethnicity, you supply the family of five, you will declare Czech nationality and send your kids to Czech school to get your job back... Sad truth is (but I've heard this applies everywhere), most nationalist and chauvinist Czechs are ... ... local Czechs with Polish ancestry :(. That guys with Polish surname and ideas like "Why these fu**ers talk here Polish, we are in the Czech Republic, goddamit!" and there goes his liberal friend and say, "Wassup Martin. You attended Polish school, so shut the fu** up." :) I have always admired Hungarians in Slovakia, they are able to work and live close together and to "keep it in the community". Some people say our chance is migration from Poland after EU join but truth is, Poles-immigrants assimilate even quicker. You talk with them Polish, they even can't talk Czech but try by any means.
As for Romania, I always defended you when it came to joining the EU. You know, some of my colleagues at the university studies are right wing, and it is quite sad when you hear at the university something like "oh god, Romanian filth is joining us, another fu**ing Gypsies". Btw we can talk about Czech nationalists (perfectly hidden in the society) :). How about Romanian nationalists? Regards. - Darwinek 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Portuguese elections

Thanks for adding all the extra elections. Do you know the months of the two 1836, 1870 and 1906 elections? Number 57 09:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Great work! :) Number 57 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, John T. Ford, was selected for DYK!

On February 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John T. Ford, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Mărăşti

I glanced over this article, and there are a couple of things that could be done to improve it:

1. Citations, citations, citations. You can see the guidelines for what should be cited here. If you need help with formatting the citations or notes section, let me know.
2. The order of battle should be move to the end if it's left in list form, of turned into prose if you want to leave it the main body of the article.

I'm going away for the weekend, but I'll give it a copyedit, etc., when I get back. Nice work so far, though. Carom 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Saparmurat Niyazov

I fail to see the point of the template you just added. The information is already presented, better, by the succession template. KazakhPol 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I wont remove it, because one could make the argument that its beneficial. I am, however, thinking of putting it up for an AFD. If I do, I will alert you. Regards, KazakhPol 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The formatting change is fine with me. Unfortunately I only remember Babayev. If I find a list I will create pages. KazakhPol 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha no, no, no. KazakhPol 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, and thank you for your message. I have just now checked my mail (I had some internet problems, and still have no outgoing service).

To be honest, I did consider leaving for good: what did it was being called a communist, being asked to apologize for things I never said, being told I was incoherent and losing contact with reality, as well as a danger to the wikipedia community (I took time to review my posts on the debated subjects, and I found nothing in there that would have justified any such argument). I also got very bitter when I noticed that some mudslinging aimed at me in the past had left deeper marks than I ever imagined (specifically, a noob trolled after being convinced by some established user that I was anti-Moldavian - you may know who that user is, and what he resorted to in order to provoke that perception; I hope you will see my point when I tell you could never apologize for having called him a troll on the basis of this).

That was only part of the reason, though. I did make a conscious choice to stay away at least for a while, and it coincided with my leaving the city for a couple of days. In any case, if and when I would have left, I would have made sure to let you know, and to thank you for making this project interesting, fair, and, well, workable. Not to mention that your message (and another one I received from Khoikhoi) would have very likely persuaded me to return. I recently read what (a pre-Stalinist) Breton wrote to Tzara when he was asking him to join the Paris group: "it is our differences which unite us". Not only could this statement work as a template for wikipedian behavior, not only does it contrast with what I have to deal with before taking my break, but it is also the attitude I have attempted to instill in others and have always refreshingly found in your contributions and comments (which, as you probably know, obliges me to rank you among my favorite wikipedians).

All in all, I could not stay put. So much more needed to be done, and I was itching to do it. So, yeah, I'm back in business - except that I'm taking my time returning to the disputed article (which I can only hope is kept cleanish). Cheers, Dahn 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Union of Communist Youth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hey Biruitorul, would you be able to copyedit the Bocicoiu Mare and Velykyy Bychkiv articles? They were translated from the Hungarian Wikipedia. Thanks, Khoikhoi 09:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW, I'm not so sure if the West Papuans themselves want to unite with Papua New Guinea. They obviously hate being part of Indonesia, but I think they would favor independence instead. For one thing, the two halves of the island have had different modern histories, due to being ruled by different countries. Also there is a difference in religious beliefs... Khoikhoi 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the higher percentage of indigenous beliefs practiced on Irian Jaya. Today you can mostly find these people in the depths of the jungle (such as the Korowai or Kombai). There are still some uncontacted tribes as well. Most Muslims in Irian Jaya are Indonesian immigrants settled there by the government in an attempt to fix the problem of overpopulation on the western islands. Anyways, there are some good articles about West Papua on the BBC, such as "Irian Jayans call for independence". I don't think a referendum will happen soon either, but I hope some day Jakarta will try to resolve this problem. Khoikhoi 12:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Three new ones: Valcău de Jos, Crasna, Sălaj, and Cavnic. Khoikhoi 00:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Khoikhoi 09:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Silvia Monfort

Hello Biruitorul,

Unfortunately, these photographs, on line for 9 months, and in particular extracted from a catalogue of the BNF (French National Library to which I had addressed a request for authorization without receiving an unspecified answer) or documents in my possession since a longtime, hadn’t, apparently, the licences Commons OK. It is all that I know… Cheers.

--Airair 18:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Northern Maramureş

Hi, I am asking people who have contributed or are interested in Northern Maramureş to talk about the recent change of the article name and some stuff (mainly spelling) inside. You can find some opinions here and here. Please, leave you comments Talk:Northern Marmaroshchyna. We might need the assistance of an admin to redo certain things (changing the name back, for ex.). Of course, let's first see that everyone agrees on a good name. Thank you.:Dc76 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Turkmen PMs template

Hi, thanks for the note. I like the idea of adding SN and GB with a note. I will try and create pages on the other PMs when I find the time. Regards, KazakhPol 01:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

szia :)

Hi Biru! Good to be back. I must say though, dear, are you deliberately needling me with that stuff about Orbán, Székelyföld and "Romanians, masters for the ages"? :) LOL Well, you have your deranged nationalist moments and I have mine. Freedom for Székelyföld, freedom for the Székely!! (see [3]--also rather stirring). Anyway, thanks for the other 56 stuff, I'll take a look at it in a little while. We proud Hungarians are just starting to work on an article about the 1848 Hungarian revolution (there wasn't one before!! can you believe that?!) with the same eventual goal as with the 56 one--FA, main page, etc. :) A Romanian perspective might be a valuable addition, if you're interested. Anyway, once again thanks for the welcome back. Have a good day...Biruiturul. :) K. Lásztocska 15:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Haven't the time to reply to all your points, but must mention the Székely. Why should they have to be loyal Romanians? They are not Romanians, they never chose to live in Romania, their language is not Romanian and their culture is not Romanian. It is nothing more than an accident of history that they live within the current borders of Romania, and it is well known that many of them wish for a certain degree of autonomy for their distinct people and culture. It's really no different from the issue of the independent Kurdistan you and I both favor. (also I seriously doubt their calls for autonomy are a plot by Budapest--Gyurcsi doesn't care one bit about the Hungarian minorities abroad--but that's a separate issue.) Oh, and please, Transylvania is a hugely significant part of Romanian AND Hungarian history/culture. We both have legitimate claims to it--only wish it could somehow belong to both countries (but yikes, wouldn't that be hard to work out the specifics...)

I must say I do enjoy these friendly jousting matches of ours--you're officially my favorite deranged nationalist. :) Cheers! K. Lásztocska 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Not sure I can poke too many holes in that--but I'm still keeping my "this user supports Székely autonomy" userbox. :)

Actually, the main reason I choose NOT to enable wikimail was precisely to avoid the kind of "real derangement" you mention; I'm not worried that you would ever be cruel or obnoxious over email, but there are others here with whom I've gotten into some very unpleasant wars.....

Oh, and don't hold your breath for Viki Orbán coming back into power..there's a big surge of support for Fidesz these days, in the aftermath of certain events of last year, but Orban himself is just making a bigger and bigger oaf of himself. No, methinks his days of glory are at an end--apologies to the Greater Romania Party. ;) ♠♣♥♦!! (Yes, I do get the urge to push those buttons...)

PS are you still hoping to become an admin one of these days? K. Lásztocska 21:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What, the army of football hooligans with Arpad flags storming the TV headquarters last September didn't do it for you? :) There have indeed been fascist/Arrow Cross/football thug/generally nasty elements in the demonstrations, but they've honestly been just a small (but loud) minority. You'd better NOT really be hoping for a new Szalasi, you know as well as I do that the Arrow Cross years were among the darkest in Hungarian history. Frankly, I wish László Solyom would be the new PM, he's frequently been the lone voice of reason in the whole mess.

I have to admit though, when the protests/riots/weird little revolution started last fall, the first thing that popped into my mind was "All RIGHT! Finally! Something fun and dramatic to get all worked into a frenzy about!" You see, my dear, human nature never changes, even Hungarian idealists and Romanian nationalists are the same. :) K. Lásztocska 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah--the least European of Europeans, but sometimes also the very definition of Mitteleuropa. Being from the distant steppes has given us all a weird isolation complex, btw--but yes, one can always count on the wild, hot-blooded, Asiatic-tempered Huns to spice things up when it gets too routine. Talpra magyar!! (oh, and thanks for the book...I'm not sure ex-pat chick lit is entirely my thing, but I'll flip through it anyways next time I have a big useless chunk of spare time. :)) K. Lásztocska 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL--back to the entertaining political turmoil Magyarországban, check this out: [4] it's worth following the link and watching the clips even if you don't understand a word of Hungarian...they're still funny....K. Lásztocska 04:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's rather amusing. :) Yes, I'm sure the Hungarian videos are even funnier when one actually understands what is being said (remember I'm a külföldi, my Hungarian is almost as bad as yours, so I'm missing a lot of jokes too) but that second one needs no language--that was the hardest I've laughed in weeks, when that guy in the background started randomly attacking inanimate objects (funny enough in itself) and then when the monotone manifesto-reader didn't even notice! Ah well, there's the strange magyar sense of humor for you...

I've thoroughly enjoyed our conversations today, I must say. Unfortunately I won't have any more spare time for additional random musings for a while again now; I'll still be around the wiki, just not so much time to chat aimlessly. Seeing as it is now after midnight where I am (and I have finally finished typing my paper for class tomorrow, barely avoided an all-nighter!) I need to get some sleep. ♠♣♥♦ and good night, see you around! :) K. Lásztocska 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Báthory

Where did you find the date of his birth and death? --Candide, or Optimism 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't find them unreliable. I was just curious where you found them, because I tried to find them as well. Thx for adding them. --Candide, or Optimism 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some feedback

Hi, and sorry for not responding sooner. I'm currently dead tired, and your last two posts deserve better longer answers than I can provide at this moment - I promise that I'll get back to you tomorrow with something more substantial. Cheers, Dahn 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Done. Should I have kept the {{sectstub}} template? Khoikhoi 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Carpathian Regions Templates

Hi there. Based on your suggestions last November (I am very sorry I got very busy in December), I have created a sketch for an new template. What do you think about it? Does it make sense? Does there exist already something for Carpathians? Is it worth spending time with this? :Dc76 21:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed my point of view on this. Thank you for your help. Also, which one should be the main, and which one redirect, Northern Maramuresh (geographic region) or Northern Maramuresh?:Dc76 16:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I will not move to new names. (Eu am cam zapacit lumea cu schimbarea precedenta, imi pare rau.) I will make a redirect from Northern Maramuresh to Northern Maramuresh (geographic region), so it would come out in searches.

Romanian calendar definitevely sounds familiar, with rapciune for september. But how can I put a reference to Moldova, add to category Moldovan culture? BTW, I don't like Moldovan culture - I prefer Culture of Moldova. Similarly (see the existing categories), I prefer Media of Moldova and People of Moldova. Can we make this changes? Where do I post for others to know that I would like to change them? Reason: Moldovan people to a person from Moldova means ethnic Moldovans, i.e. ethnic Romanians, it would automatically exclude Russians, Ukrainians, Gagauz. The current name is more strange, as inside it we have subcategory People from Transnistria with Vladimir Antyufeyev, who is simply a Russian that at some point lived in Latvia (Riga OMON tells you something?), and now stopped in Transnistria on his way home. I understand to keep Moldovan society and Moldovan law, since there can be no ethnical meaning here. But where there can be an ethnic meaning, ... of Moldova sounds better to me.

Să sperăm ca speranta n-o sa se epuizeze, o sa avem de sperat mult. E ca si cortina de fer, o sa cada, dar greu. :Dc76 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Romanian calendar is a nice article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dc76 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Replying

Man, I sure have been abusing your patience. In my defense: I had written a draft of an answer when my connection started acting up, so I needed to postpone it. Yet again, I apologize.

I very much liked the proposals for policies: let your reign of terror begin! :) Seriously though, very constructive and logical stuff (if you're planning to open a discussion on them and you need my input/support at any given time, link it to me and I'll be there).

Couldn't find an exact answer for the UTC stuff - works I use are not strictly related to the issues, and I would have to explore them in the texts (Cioroianu's doesn't even have an index, which has been a source for constant annoyance for me; other books only have one for persons). At first glance, I'm not sure if they were in power themselves after 1944/45, although a titular minister was probably a member of both the UTC and the PCR, if I remember correctly). Will have to look those details up, but only after I'm done with the PCR article, which I left hanging for now.

Cool stuff on the 1907 thing - although the persistent reflexions about similarities with the present-day situation are rather idiotic, and bring to mind the fact that the PC is no longer in power...;). Anyways, I too have bumped into this (I would have to say it is deeply Marxist, but valuable). Incidentally, there is some stuff on Christian Rakovsky which could be explored further. You're right about March moving out of focus (doh, Dahn!), but we may still gat a hold of some symbolics by going with "still, we FAed it in 2007".

I suppose your chronology on the N.Leg.State is correct (I myself have no memory for dates), so we should begin making corrections. Generally, I leave stubs to the bottom of my priority list, unless I'm sure I can (and want to) seriously expand them in the process (I still have the beginning of a draft version among my text documents). I also stayed away from the Antonescu article - perhaps, in the future, I will add and/or correct stuff in there, but for now I'm taking it easy in regard to that.

Great idea on the squads; myself, I was preparing for an article on each, but this is by far better. I don't know of any others (in fact, I had not even heard of the name "Razbunatorii" until you mentioned it). Also good stuff on the 1940 massacre (I had contemplated the thought) - I have sources for this, including a list of all people killed, so I'll be watching over your shoulder in case you want to start it before I do.

The main problem with using Levy is a paradox: we cannot use all of it. I have used it as a reference in Corneliu Coposu, but I fidget when I have to make limited references to a text that I cannot use in its entirety. This arguably gues for the article on Luci (I still have to get myself to consider using more from VT's book - either change the references to the Ro edition or check the latter against the English version index), and seems painfully obvious in the article on Pauker (where the text not available for reading bound to be equally important).

Again, sorry for the delay and the vague answers. I promise I'll look closer into each of those subjects. Btw, if you are still planning contributions on the BOR: I found this Italian-language and Catholic summary, which could serve as both a reference and a template for what you may want to add. (I see you don't rate Italian as one of your languages, but, as Romanians, we all have some grasp of it; hope it's useful).

Keep up the good work. Cheers, Dahn 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting, but I can only make a quick note for now: this indicates that there were Romanian elections in 1916 (and I remember you asking about this stuff). Dahn 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

With due apologies for delays on other topics: I'm going through the bibliography for Constantin Stere, and Ornea mentions elections in 1901. Dahn 21:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Left-wing deviationism"? I liked that: hopefully, I'll not have to formally admit my mistakes ;).

Anyways. Great news on the Levy issue - he would make a great addition to our traveling circus.

I hope you're holding on to those BOR links, though. In between the two of us, we have gathered a nice bibliography.

Also great news on the map. My family has what could well be another, slightly newer, version of the same Atlas - it's called "Handatlas", but it's damn huge (a page is as big as a full grown man's torso). If we are talking about the same type of book, I have to bow in front of Olahus: he either spent a week scanning it or has a really big scanner (in either case, he must be very patient).

We do have stuff on verification in the PCR article, though it is not as specific as you would want it (because such were the sources). I don't plan to use Stalinism pentru eternitate... in that article as well, at least not for now, since it would take just too much time to quote properly a book that massive on such a large topic. However, there is his English-language work I have used on Valter Roman (and, for now, advertised on the PCR article) - it could reveal more details on this (I notice it is very detailed). So, keep your fingers crossed. :)

Interesting stuff on Pătrăşcanu. Could I perchance ask you to go through other things in that book about him specifically? (Perhaps look through the index.) We could expand the article significantly with yet another source (whoever of us is actually going to edit it in). This seems much easier than using the book for the article on Pauker (plus, it could help you in the future, because you would already have gathered details that you can later glue together). I've checked out the index, and most of it seems to gravitate around page 145 - if you could peak into other sections and add detail or back up presently-used citations, it would be peachy. I don't want to impose on you, just in case you have the time and will.

Unfortunately, I cannot do much for the numbers just yet. I have more context for the 1937 elections, but not more numbers (I'm surprised you managed to find out that many...); congrats on that article, though, it came as a complete and pleasant surprise. For the deportations, I'm equally confused myself, and so are many historians; I don't have any source that would actually list the numbers nearby, but I do remember a Magazin Istoric which had a lengthy article on German deportations - will have to look it up, though. Dahn 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Teohari Georgescu, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 12:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hall Caine

Thanks for your message about my Hall Caine article; it's good to get feedback. As you noticed, my references were very limited - to one person in fact, Allen's book and her article in the DNB, so it's good to be provided with more. I shall add sections on Caine's family and his religion - but not yet as I have nominated it for Good Article asssessment (mainly to get more feedback and advice) and for that it is supposed to be "stable". Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Of course, I understand the Moldova-Moldavian distinction in English, so strictly speaking Moldovan culture and Culture of Moldova are the same (similarly Moldovan Media). However, many articles in other languages usually start with translations from English, and no other language has the Moldovan/Moldavian distinction. (Was it BBC who coind the term Moldovan in 1992? I remeber because I was still learning English at that time, but I am not sure who actually did.) Anyway, if you believe the acategory names are better as are, that's fine with me.

I knew about F-23, but I did not know it was called F-23. Yes, if Mihai would have done something similar, I would have had a different oppinion about him. Comparison with the kings of Bulgaria and Serbia is not the best thing to convince me, b/c the fact that he is not the only mediocre person does not speak much in his favour in my eyes. The problem with people at top is they are obliged to perform, or otherwise they are at best called incompetent, and generaly called malicious if not worse. There is no middle, neutral. The only way not to be called malicious is to actually do extraordinary things. Well, Mihai just survived and did not do any big stupidity (perhaps 90% in his place would have done) - but that's not sufficient. He is not applying for a increase in salary or a CEO job. He wants to be the chief of the state, and irrevocably. Even if that does not carry too much power under normal circumstances, that's not something i am prepared to hand on a plate just because he has not done any visible damage. You see, I consider inactivity a damage. And knowing who his father was... How did he wash his father's sins? Just by not producing others? On the contrary, if he would have led an anti-communist insurection, and preferably died in the attempt, his daughter would be surely queen now. Modern kings and queens forget something - 500 and 1000 years ago someone had the autority that people would immediately kneel before, and follow into water and fire b/c that someone would not hesitate to act in a 1:20 inferiority. I am a superficially religious person, but I remember many years ago, a portion I read once from the Old Testament, something that supposedly have happened about 3000 years ago: an attack by Saul's son Johnatan and his arm-bearer on a 20-strong military outpost. That is what I would call royal blood, dispite his father being also a disaster.

Maybe the reason I haven't heard about Mihai's visit is I am very little physically in Moldova, mostly people tell me what happens and I read, I try to follow everything, but...:Dc76 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Populaţia Bucureştilor

Salut. Am observat şi eu acelaşi lucru. Multe articole conţin estimări mai mult sau mai puţin dubioase referitoare la diverşi indicatori statistici (populaţia fiind unul dintre ei). Ca regulă generală, dacă nu există o altă sursă oficială (de ex., pentru unele localităţi din judeţul Constanţa am găsit indicatori din 2004 sau chiar 2006 pe site-ul Consiliului Judeţean), mi se pare o idee bună să se utilizeze datele de la ultimul recensământ. Probabil nu ar fi rău să postăm ideea şi pe notice board for future reference şi nu în ultimul rând ca să evităm conflicte inutile. Regards, Mentatus 10:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

De acord. :Dc76 14:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Historic moments

• Happened on March 2, 2007 in the article Valter Roman: [5] followed by[6].:Dc76 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Monument to the Heroes of the Military Engineers' Army on DYK for 6 March 2007

On 6 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monument to the Heroes of the Military Engineers' Army, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! — ERcheck (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Weeeelcome back

Hi again. Perhaps you can avenge my incompetence on Paul Goma (see the talk page for a proof of that). It could do with some serious editing - unfortunately, the computer wiz that I am, I could only add them there. It's in need of serious editing - plus, you are not, like me, "an anti-Romanian", so you won't have to deal with absurd questions. Dahn 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Before we get started: Dpotop has used my talk page to answer to your message, but I have deleted his post because he was largely spamming and called Khoikhoi names. In case you have not seen it and are interested, his answer is here.

Yes, I have been a bit frustrated by WP:V several times. Btw, does your story in any way relate to this (the guy in the story seems to have wanted to make a point, which would be kinda stupid were NC himself to allow a church to be built in the same town/village/back of the woods)? But, you know, their graves in Ghencea are topped with crosses that have five-pointed stars carved into them and painted red... which is not only amazingly moronic, it is also amazingly tacky. That is, of course, if they are buried there... [insert creepy music]

I don't know where those "Orthodox" categories are going, but if they are going anywhere and this is verified, yes, by all means, he belongs there.

I agree on Koestler: I thought that someone was bound to add the national attribute, and I though it would not need to be chronologically exact. I'll remove it, because it is just confusing. Though, dude... you do know you could have removed it yourself... I don't mean this to sound berating, far from it: I'm saying that you can intervene at any point in my edits when you see questionable things, I could not possibly mind.

Even though the city was not part of the M(A)SSR, I view that section as listing spellings that have some relevance (first-rank or second-rank) to the area - that is why Gagauz, Hebrew, Polish, and Bulgarian are also present. I would welcome an Arabic alphabet Ottoman spelling (but that is complicated enough, as explained to me once by a wonderful lady) or even a Romanian Cyrillic alphabet spelling. I never viewed this as POV-pushing for Moldovenism since, well, it gives it as a variant for the Romanian-language name... if you know what I mean ;). (I wonder why guys like Node didn't already notice this.) Dahn 11:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank Biruitorul for his copy editting of my contributions. Please, do not hesitate to critisize where you feel is the case (can improve the articles or the future edits). I am not taking the criticism personally, and especially to yours I would be much more inclined to "make allowance".

Dahn, I couldn't but notice the discussion above, and I guess you are talking about Cetatea Alba (from the link you give). I am surprized that article got into edit waring (as I can see from its history). There were so many ways any "side" could have compromise. It only just shows that people put pricipiality (for an insignificant detail!) above result. Please, tell me if any of these do not sound logical to you:

• The name Cetatea Alba was used also before 1503. The article does not mention it. It appears from the article that the name was invented in 1918.
• The name Cetatea Alba with cyrillic letters was never used officialy, because before 1940 the city was in Romania (not in MASSR), and after - in Ukrainian SSR. During 1945-1989, in Moldova you could see it with cyryllic script only in books about Stefan cel Mare, etc, or in history maps, for example in schools in history classes before 1989. But only in classes in Moldovan (Romanian), which was not the official language at the time. The official maps of USSR and Ukrainian SSR were in Russian, and the name was Белгород-Днестровский Belgorod-Dnestrovkii. (Only MSSR, USSR, Europe, and world maps were found in cyrillic Moldavian (Romanian). Maps of UkSSR - in Russian, not even in Ukrainian.) I don't know why noone gave 10 seconds of thought to this, and move the sentence 2 paragraphs below, where one talks about the names in never-official languages (Bulagian, Polish, etc). That would be the best solution in my oppinion. What do you think?:Dc76 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The name "Cetatea Albă" was not used before 1503, and I'm pretty sure it was not used for long after that date (I cannot find any references that the name in Romanian was recorded anywhere around that time). I personally can agree on principle to moving it one paragraph down. I am perfectly aware of what the political situation was, as you may note from my reply to Biruitorul. Dahn 23:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I take you agree to my second point. Good. Of course, I don't mind if you refrase it there etc. whatever.

I am not blaming you of not knowing something, I was just showing on what exactly I based my rationale.

As for the first point, let me ask you this: what name was used during Stefan cel Mare's time? If you say there are no written sourses in Romanian at that time, then I would disagree this is a viable motive, because then we can not use any French name before the edict of Strasbourg for sure, and until the rule of Charles Valois most probably (the switch from latin to french in official documents), no Enlgish name - for even much longer, and for all ancient languages except Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Caldean, Sanskrit and Chinese. So, no Decebal, but Decebalus, no Arab names before 7th century, no Maya names, no Percian names until very later, etc, etc. I believe it doesn't make sense to start pointless disputes about the name of the city in 1392-1503. Before Renaissance, writting was by far not an important activity, kings have died without ever writting anything, and they were quite official. I think we should use the standards of the times to which we refer. Do you really think that's worth, arguing about this? I believe there are many more useful things to do. I wrote this here, not on the talk page, because it is a very small issue, but if I would have written it there, a couple users would have seen it, and it would have been more escalation. But so, you can use it as an example that you are not uncompromizing with details, and ask them to be more reasonable as well. In every dispute out of control the more intelligent person gives up first (because that person knows that there are more ways than brute force).:Dc76 00:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no indication of the name to have been used. In general, French names are not used for the Roman-to-Frankish period, as opposed to their Latin equivalents. I don't know how "Decebal" came to be, but it's a strictly Romanian thing (I suppose it came through the tendency of French to turn Latin names into non "-us" forms, and that Romanians went with the pronunciation of that hybrid). Persian names are extremely old. Mayan names, recorded in some form or another quite early, are likely used in retrospect for unrecorded names because they have no equivalent in any other language except Spanish, and that retrospect is comparatively short. A large number of European languages were recorded before the Renaissance - Romanian is a late bloomer under any criterion used for the chronology of recorded languages.

In my opinion, the name in this form is a modern rendition. It is very probable that Moldavians themselves used a form of the foreign names in use - Belgorod is an equally likely variant (considering that the "so very Latin in name" Alba Iulia was known to Romanians as "Bălgrad"). Let's not write Whig history. Dahn 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Grigore Ureche, Miron Costin, and Ion Nistor write Cetatea Alba. They are not contemporaries (Grigore Ureche was born in 1590, the others in 17th century), but they were supposed to know. You see, as long as these 3 cronics write one way, and you will insist on no, and suppositions that Moldavians were using a different name (tell that to more Moldavians and they will just overload you with insults), in my oppinion that's not constructive. Do you actually see this as such a big issue? I do not like Whigs, in pre-1860 US I sympathize with Democratic Republicans:Dc76 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For the first time - from you, today - I hear that Cetatea Alba was some kind of nationalist wishful thinking term. Give it a brake, please, it's just a historical name, as translated from Italian (from Genoese) and Greek (from Bizantenes). To pick to insist on such an issue, there is a Russian saying, I am sure Illythr or someone else will be very glad to explain it to you, or maybe you'l be curious to find out for yourself Не солидно. :Dc76 03:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dc76, I have very little taste for discussing how why I feel about things the way I feel, for engaging in clever repartees in languages I do not speak, and for making note of "how many Moldavians would overload me with insults". This is a boundary I have set myself, based on what i consider a civilized conversation to be, and based on what this project is about.

In all honesty, you cannot present a record of the name having been used that far back in time. I can understand what your reasoning is, I am not sure why it is relevant as long as the conclusion is pure speculation. Dahn 12:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Not to interrupt this scintillating discussion, but "Whig history" refers to British, not American, Whigs.) Biruitorul 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani leaders

Azerbaijan SSR was established in 1922 and lasted until 1991 without any periods of "non-existence." It didn't stop being a sovereign Soviet Socialist republic after joining the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. That's why the latter was called "Federative." You can always check with the respective articles. Parishan 08:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they were Soviet Socialist Republics all the way until the 1990s. The sovereignty was preserved according to the Constitution, and the Russian Wikipedia mentions that. However I don't think TSFSR should be mentioned in the template even if it's historically accurate. It makes the template look confusing and redundant. Plus it misleads the reader into believing that Azerbaijan SSR didn't exist during those 15 years, which it in fact did. Parishan 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Apprentice UK

Hello, Biruitorul/Archive2 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: contest

♠♣♥♦! My favorite deranged nationalist is back! :)

I like the translation idea a bit better than the other, because it seems to me that if we're really going to do an all-out Romania vs. Hungary thing, full of patriotism and national pride (as it always should be), we should write on topics related to Romania and Hungary. :) Probably we can eventually do both, since I hope the contest will not be just a one-time thing. It's fun for us and good for the Wiki! Why not make it a tradition? One caveat though--I would prefer that the rules do NOT restrict the articles to translation only, we should be able to add our own material to what we translate from Ro- and Hu-Wiki.

We should also, all in good fun and the spirit of healthy rivalry, offer some really good, slightly twisted and delightfully mischievous prizes to the winners. I was going to propose that the winners get full claim to Transylvania for a week, but once I thought about it some more I realized it doesn't really make sense (and let's leave it at that...). My latest thought is the losers have to all write rhapsodic odes to the winners' country and put them on their user pages for a few days, or a week, or until the next competition. :) Thoughts?

The topics you suggested for translating are fine by me. K. Lásztocska 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah--and we'll have to settle on how exactly to decide the winner. Ideas? K. Lásztocska 02:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, those prizes are evil! :) I like it! How about five days for DYK? Three days seems a little skimpy. Or split the difference and go for four days? K. Lásztocska 15:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting on Friday or ending on Friday? BTW, my userpage is going to look rather different on Thursday, the 15th... :) K. Lásztocska 17:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. It's up on the magyar noticeboard. :) K. Lásztocska 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL no, the other thing that happened on March 15. :) Talpra magyar, hí a haza! K. Lásztocska 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. It's one of those things that could be absolutely terrific...or it could backfire stupendously. Let's just hope everyone remembers it's meant to be a FRIENDLY rivalry, and the evil prizes are just for fun. K. Lásztocska 01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Iosif Chişinevschi

Very interesting article, but it certainly needs clearer paragraphing and headings. Would be a fine candidate for WP:DYK. -- Camptown 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi (it's on the same topic, so I'll keep to the header). For clarity and per VT on p.172 (Romanian edition), I would rephrase that as "to ensure Soviet control". If you don't mind, I will have a closer look in the near future (I'll add more references and connect it to info in other articles).

Btw,how do you feel about such stuff? I think it is becoming really, really disruptive. Dahn 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was rather vague in my message. What I meant to say was in relation to his goals, not to his status as Soviet agent - I suppose the issue was what he used his spy status for ("infiltrating" works better if you specify that his job was to ensure obedience to Moscow or something like that). Interestingly, I think we were looking at the same page in VT...

Oh, and thanks for weighing in on the other issue. Your opinion means a lot to me. Dahn 12:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask that you intervene on Valter Roman. Someone has reverted to a version vandalized by Icar. Dahn 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, could you please comment on it? There is a full offensive going on, and, as you may see, a newly-intervened editor has begun to use reverse psychology. Part of what was simply erased because of that user's POV is actually your contribution (indirectly). I cannot continue to argue for common sense on my very own: please formulate an opinion and help clear my name, because this is simply ridiculous. Dahn 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would also like to ask you to state your view on a related issue involving sources, so as to clarify it (see my last comment there). Dahn 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask you not to? :-) --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

About my reverts

I focus on Vladimir Tismăneanu, Alexandru Nicolschi, Securitate and a few other articles, some of which are currently blocked featuring User:Dahn's version. I claim that this editor pushes his agenda against all other editors, by enlisting the help of unsuspecting editors like User:Khoikhoi or simply people willing to help in exchange for similar repayment. This is easy to see from the discussion and history pages. There has been plenty of discussion so far. I revert to what is consensus versions for everyone - except for Dahn, that is, who objects in bad faith to everything different from his versions. To give you just one example, he want to call Nicolschi a Romanian communist activist. This is misleading as noted by everyone, since Nicolschi was a NKVD colonel, later a general. NKVD colonel is evidently more significant than "Romanian activist". It is as if he wanted to call all people of dubious reputation "Romanians", which is misleading and unfair. (Icar 13:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Strawmanship and intentional amphibology. Dahn 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lupeni strike

Salut. După părerea mea, cred că ar trebui menţinate toate sursele şi în articolul despre Valea Jiului. Din păcate nu am nici o sursă în bibliotecă referitoare la greva din Lupeni :( Ţin minte că am citit un articol în "Magazin istoric" parcă în care se spunea că greva a fost provocată de NKVD şi Comintern (după modelul celei de la Tatar-bunar, vezi şi articolul din Ziua: http://www.ziua.net/display.php?data=1999-08-08&id=29346&ziua=38a9daf3f06b30b8731a310e1ab51ffc). Regards, Mentatus 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Adresarea cu "Dumneavoastră" mă face să mă simt prea bătrân :) (I'm in my early 30's).

Did you know

On 13 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iosif Chişinevschi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Duchnovič

If you did not know Alexander Duchnovič considered himself as a Rusyn, he was writting about it (Ia rusyn byl, ies'm i budu (I Was, Am, and Will Be a Rusyn). The statement that he was Ukrainian was inveted by Soviet comunists to explain how Subcarpathian Ruthenia becommed part of Soviet Union after WW2. Conqueror100

Striking ideas

First of all, allow me thank you for your support. I meant to write this earlier, but I was simply exhausted after dealing with all the bs (btw, someone is desperately wanting to fly up to the Sun, a fact that, I hope, can only lead to tearing feathers). I guess I should have picked up on evidence of Bonapartism when Hizkiah or whatever "his name" was lectured me on his years-long experience as a wikipedian, despite having his account created in December...

Also, no sweat on the Tâmpa issue - btw, much of it can be sourced from here.

As for your main topic: Exquisite Idea. I was pondering it back in the day when I was the only one who cared about such topics, but it seemed that I was reaching to high at that moment. Now we are just about ready to look into it closer. There are a few issues I would amend, though:

• I would use "labo[u]r movement in Romania" over "Romanian" (sometimes, vaguer is better)
• I would not turn all those strikes into articles, at least for now - many of them may never get close to FA status, and we could detail them in the "Labor" article for starters (or, indeed, for ever). For example, Rakovsky's strikes, and even the Bucharest shinding in 1918 could easily form paragraphs in the new article (pending their own articles, or just sitting there). I would also not create a "Romania during the Depression", since that would be vague and would lead to clutter - instead, I would (in the future) focus on major events in the "Kingdom of Romania" or "Greater Romania" articles (we still haven't decided on how to relate those to the History series), and outline them in the "Labor" article. In the latter, I would divide the Depression period into two sections, and "mainarticle" one to Lupeni, the other to Griviţa (with overviews of additional events - and, yes, a clear need for expansion in the latter). I would also prefer topical articles on the unions themselves, if such a thing is feasible.

Stuff that I would add to your overview (not a complete review, just what I can think of right now), and stuff that we would need to look into:

• perhaps a look into radical projects of the cărbunari, to see how much of them fits the topic of the article (as a "prehistory" - no, not under that title, but reflecting that idea)
• early unionism (the really early ones - late 1800s) and details on ideological background (bound to be interesting, but likely undersourced)
• the Potemkin episode and the claims made by Rakovsky in relation to its outcome (very interesting stuff)
• the Transylvanian Soc Dems negotiating with the PNR over labor rights as a prerequisite for the Union (also investigation into the status of Ioan Flueraş and Enea Grapini as labor activists during that time)
• National Liberal repression (a term grossly misused by the communists, but still applicable) in the early 1900s and early 1920s
• Galaction's testimonies about the early 1920s
• Jewish affiliation to Labor Zionism
• the PCR and PSDR spitting at each other during the interwar (Frunză also adds detail on the link between PSDR and labor)
• precisely what the main trade unions of the interwar where and their history (Cristescu fits in there somehow), and the cool but friendly relations allegedly kept by Ghelerter/Popovici/Cristescu and the PCR during the strikes (flimsy material so far, but I'll see if I can find out more)
• I'm quite surprised you missed these: Pancu's violent "alternative" to unionism, Corpul Muncitoresc Legionar, Stelescu's left turn, and Manoilescu's rants about corporatism (with their Legionary connections)
• Carol's strict corporatism (with Flueraş as leader)
• the PCR "uniting" unions (all the way to the UGSR)
• SLOMR
• Braşov Rebellion
• the Civic Alliance in relation to the unions
• Mineriads (or, at least, those that had labor aspects)
• other post-1990 strikes

Well, I'd say we've got a long way to go, but it's feasible. Oh, some pictures are available (though I'm guessing you've seen them). My collection of Magazin Istoric has an amazing number of PD socialist kitsch from the early labor movement (like the goddess of Liberty handing down a copy of Das Kapital to a bearded worker). I've got to get me a scanner. Dahn 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh: we can always sandbox it if you want to see how it will fit in. Your call. Dahn 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I say we put the Great Depression subarticle on hold (I don't object to it, but I want to see it fit in the overall history, and us concentrating on these things one at a time - or to let the format guide us, if you will). It is also a headache, because we have hundreds of articles to link it to, and we'd best start at some other point and move on from there - consolidation of the Greater Romania and Kingdom articles as a priority in this respect. On the main topic: I'll finish some stuff myself, and then I'll look into this a little bit more. Again, wonderful idea. Dahn 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(I'm in the process of moving from British to American English, mainly because the spellcheck on firefox wants me to - while at it, I also began to enjoy it. I'll amend my ways for articles we both contribute to, so we don't end up writing in two languages.) Dahn 23:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll leave you to start it then, whenever you're ready. After all, we have labor and we have labour. ;) Dahn 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've linked this to the PSDR article, but haven't really used it. Likely biased, but may provide some context. Dahn 23:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? Great minds think alike. Dahn 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lupeni Strike of 1929, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Mulţumesc --BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tarnaveni, changes

I will write in romanian it's about small changes in that article where he put a text that has nothing to do with that context: Ai adaugat o fraza stearsa pentru care de câtva vreme mă tot lupt să o şterg. În primu rând contextul în care îi introdusă îi aiurea înainte era vorba de atestarea documentară a localităţii din 1276 după care se zice de o nouă perioadă în care apare pomenită localitatea în 1502, iar tu introduci textu despre Trianon din 1918 între. În plus că textul îi tendenţios, da se pare că ţie nu îţi pare, deşi dacă te uiţi la istoria modificarilor chiar şi maghiarii îs de aceaşi parere. O să reşterg fraza şi sper să înţelegi şi tu motivul. Spor la treabă şi scris! Olario 09:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

contest

I just nominated the Hungarians' article for DYK. :)

Next time we do this, I think we should pick similar topics to each other. (As soon as we magyarok started arguing about historical interpretations and rightful kings, I immediately thought "damn those crafty Romanians, they gave us a controversial article on purpose! They know us too well!" LOL) Anyway, what do you know about folk music? We don't have a satisfactory article on Hungarian folk music and I doubt there is one on Romanian folk music.....then afterwards we can all collaborate on Music of Transylvania. :))) K. Lásztocska 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't realize I'd put it up too early--I must have my preferences set for the wrong time zone. :( Terribly sorry...no foul play intended....K. Lásztocska 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I knew I could count on Romanian generosity. :) *wink*....K. Lásztocska 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Next time let's use GMT on the 24-hour system for deadlines, to avoid confusions such as this exact one...K. Lásztocska 17:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh....Biru, dear, look at DYK on the main page.....K. Lásztocska 18:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, never mind....they axed us...K. Lásztocska 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Only you could enjoy seeing a crowd of drunken hooligans spoil the memory of 1848. And yes, as you have noticed, my Hungarian is absolutely atrocious. I had the misfortune of being born in the United States and nobody in my family speaks Hungarian anymore, so I've been starting from scratch. Teaching myself, by the way. I have never taken any language lessons or classes in Hungarian because there AREN'T any where I live.

Contests just between you and Alensha? Sure, go to it. Exclude the stupid little külföldi. I'm sorry if I'm a little grumpy right now but I'm having a terrible time in my language studies right now (i.e. I'm making absolutely zero progress) and every time I'm reminded that I cannot speak the language of the country that my heart burns for, I feel pretty rotten. (me and Franz Liszt...the poor guy.)

For future contests, actually, it might be better to have the focus be on article creation, rather than strict translation. The ends justifying the means and all that good stuff--it shouldn't really matter how the article gets on EnWiki, just that it does. I'd be happy to work on Kodály, whether for a contest or not. Let me know if you like my folk music idea, because if it's not going to be a contest, I'll probably just start the article on my own. I could save it for a contest if you want.

Anyway, now we just have to wait and see: who gets to watch the other team write something embarrassing on their user pages?! K. Lásztocska 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicago? I wish! I'm from a much smaller city on the edge of, shall we say, the American Puszta. I have only met one other Hungarian here and I hardly ever see her. Thanks for your advice and the links, though. I'll be moving to a bigger city (don't know which one yet) in the fall when I enter conservatory, so I'll probably have better luck then.

OK, so maybe a few of the hooligans were actual Arrow Crossers, but I'm 100% sure that most of them were just your basic skinhead thugs and football hooligans--their leader is a guy called "Tomcat", for heaven's sake. K. Lásztocska 22:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We both lost the contest, our noms are expired. :( K. Lásztocska 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, nice work with the tiny yellow message. :) That is a good site! Looks like the English version is still under construction but between the lot of us we could mine the magyar version pretty thoroughly. I agree that our coverage of that period is pretty weak--I'm planning to focus more on 1848 for a while though. Actually I'm taking off for a few days, or at least will be contributing in reduced capacity, because I've somehow gotten into several very unpleasant exchanges over the last few days and I need a short break to get some perspective. (If I stick around and fight, I'll likely just blow my top and get blocked.) So szia later, ♠♣♥♦, be back soon. :) K. Lásztocska 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Tampa2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tampa2.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. 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tampa, Brasov

Sources should be properly labelled, that is, not under an "External links" header etc. WP:DYK is fairly tough about that... Camptown 12:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Révai & Farkas

Hi,

I translated those two communists from huwiki.

Could you please add a pronunciation note to Nicolae Labiş' name? I've read one of his poems a few weeks ago, the one about the deer, and really liked it. I'm proud that he and me have the same birthday :) – Alensha ^talk 14:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Муромцев.jpg

Well, the picture emerges on several Russian websites, such as the liberal SPS Party. I think the quarrel has more to do with the "combatants" Sigh... --Camptown 22:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's really too sad that editors such as Ghirlandajo are leaving this project due to destructive participants of this project. --Camptown 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. I turned out to have a point. By the way, I was not really a newbie then. Having edited anonymously on Dutch and German wiki. --Pan Gerwazy 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Estonian Insurgency of 1924

Hi! Sorry for being so silent, but I have had a lot to do and I kind of just did what you asked without saying a word about it to you or anyone else. Fortunately you noticed the article on the Trial of the 149 yourself. Now I have done also the article on the insurgency of 1924, but it needs a lot of editing as I did it fairly quickly and I make a lot of mistakes in articles. So feel free to edit and correct my text any way you consider necessary. I noticed that Andres had also started to work on this article, so I tried to keep most of his text you had already edited and just to add what I had done. Best regards, Toomas 09:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tâmpa, Braşov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already noticed and have modified my userpage accordingly. I'm not actually gone, just taking it easy for a while. K. Lásztocska 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha, alright, Béla Lugosi, have your fun, you get to gloat for a week. Actually, although I'm none too fond of the exact way Trianon turned out and the nasty dealings leading up to it, I'm not really much of an irredentist--mind you, I wouldn't outright refuse a little sliver of south Slovakia and some of the more Hungarian parts of Erdély if they were offered on a golden platter, but I'm not losing sleep over it or anything. :) You already know I want some sort of autonomy for the Székely, but beyond that I think messing with the current borders would be WAY too much trouble for any potential gain. And of course I support the right of the Slovaks and whoever to have their own countries, I'm a liberal nationalist by philosophy anyway, it goes with the, erm, territory. :) They just did a terribly sloppy job of drawing the borders! K. Lásztocska 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh believe me, though I'm not especially religious, I have plenty of cheesy blood-and-soil, mystical, romantic, generally over-the-top 19th-century symphonic poem, Nemzeti dal, sword-of-Attila and turul-bird etc. kind of patriotic fervor as well. :) It's fun, and I've always had perhaps too much fondness for the various banners and trappings of overblown patriotism--no matter how liberal, pacifist and anti-fascist I may be, God knows I can't help but thrill at the sight of a regiment of hussars in full dress uniform riding ceremonially by, I get tears in my eyes when writing/reading about 1956 and the early days of 1848, I've always been big on national holidays, ceremonial commemorations, etc., I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the point. :) Last Thursday (March 15) I leaped out of bed much earlier than I can usually muster and proceeded to fervently recite the Nemzeti dal from the top of the stairs (by which I accomplished nothing but scaring the bejesus out of my cat.) So you and I may have more in common than we think, except the obvious glaring difference.... ;)

As for reading something in Romanian--I can already decipher some things in Romanian, given its similarity to Latin and French (neither of which I actually know but I've sort of absorbed them through the ambient culture.) I'll take a look at that article later and see if I can make heads or tails of it....K. Lásztocska 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Sorry, I do not have time now to translate article about Dositej Obradović, so perhaps you should ask somebody else. I planed to post demographics data into all articles about municipalities in former Yugoslavia, and until I finish this, I would not have much time for other things. PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Beaches in Chicago has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ulianov to Koba

Hey, man. I am tardy as usual, but I finally started something. Btw, I lapsed out of the contest: did we win? As a contributor to the article, I should be wearing the "Have your crappy Transylvania" tag - far from me to evade my commitments. Anyways, I see ours was up for DYK (congrats, btw), but, if theirs wasn't, were is their tag? (I'm kidding: though I'd like to know what happened, I will not be upset if they ought to but don't want to do it.) Dahn 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cioroianu actually has an entire chapter about his death, and he may mention it there (I think he was cremated as well, and I'm pretty sure he was the main attraction inside the Tineretului Park monument). I'd rather not check it now, if you don't mind - I'm pretty tired, and will rather just resume myself to more relaxing activities, such as talking to you. Dahn 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the cremation article is quality. Dahn 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work on Labiş - I'll work on it from my side some time in the following days. Btw, this was a dilemma for me: most sources will indicate that he was a communist by convictions, and that he was on the left wing of opponents to the regime. I think he is due for inclusion in both the communists category and list (although I don't think he ever did join the party; he was nonetheless a rather prominent member of the UTC, and you may want to include him among the notable members in the UTC article). VT has some interesting insight on this. Anyways, something tells me you should expect someone else to come visit bearing tags... See you tomorrow. Dahn 03:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to let you down: Cioroianu does not mention cremation, and merely uses vague words that could mean just anything ("înmormântat"). It's amazing that it is not indicated anywhere in a chapter on how he died, especially since part of it is almost reportage-like. Dahn 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As if it wasn't complicated enough: as of today, Tăriceanu replaced Ungureanu as foreign minister. Dahn 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The funniest thing is that I thought you emailed Cioroianu to ask him how he feels about Tăriceanu replacing Ungureanu :) - it only later dawned on me what you meant. (Btw, did you check out his site? It is rather amusing - all empty but for the weird personality cult.) Unfortunately, I haven't read Petreu, but I believe you when you say the book is good.

About the "relations": that style of articles seems like overkill to me, but I could live with and contribute to a series; nevertheless, at this stage in Romanian coverage they seem like luxury (plus, you know how much I hate stubs...).

An issue related to the Cabinet: should the PM/FM infoboxes list, under "political party", all parties the person was a member of, or just the one he belonged to while in office? (I would say "he or she", but we both know that is yet to happen...)

Rather than use the article on Malaxa, I would use the sources it uses (it anyway does seem to have been partly copy-pasted). But, yeah, it's something. Dahn 23:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I was also thinking that, if we were to go with more parties, the infobox on Argetoianu would have been destined to become its own article. Dahn 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see rowiki is still in use as a propaganda tool... Anyway, I just created Grigore Iunian, and bumped into some detail on the Great Depression we may find useful later. Dahn 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lupescu

I wondered if you might take a look at my remarks at Talk:Magda Lupescu#POV Footnotes and see if you have anything to say on the topic. - Jmabel | Talk 07:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I say we cite the lot of them. Now I know where the implausible 1902 came from! (The one time she was forced to say something herself...) - Jmabel | Talk 16:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• This may finally stop people from repeatedly changing to a date that some one source considers definitive. - Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Liberation" of Romania

Da, văd că vor să ne "elibereze" şi pe Wikipedia (vezi şi edit-ul ăsta: [7]). Momentan nu prea am f. mult timp, o să încerc să mă pun în temă şi să văd cum pot să ajut. Mulţumesc pentru mesaj, Mentatus 12:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Văd că articolul e pe mâini bune (tu, Dahn, Dpotop, Turgidson..) - aşa că momentan rămân în expectativă (cunoşti proverbul cu "Prea multe moaşe..." :). În orice caz, sper ca până la urmă să se dezamorseze conflictul şi să rămân doar la stadiul de intenţii bune (deşi Dante avea el o vorbă în privinţa asta :). Anyway, dacă e nevoie de mine, let me know. Mentatus 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Acum Petri Krohn face conexiuni provocatoare între 25 octombrie 1944 şi Soviet occupation of Romania, pe care o descrie ca "liberation": [8]. Atac pe multiple fronturi... Mentatus 07:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Petri insistă. Poţi să arunci o privire la Armed Forces Day? Mulţumesc. Mentatus 08:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Providing assistance from beyond (wink, wink)

Hi. I meant to answer earlier, but did not have as much time time as I wanted to, and simply wondered aimlessly on wiki when I did have time.

On the peasantry issue: while it is hard not to mention at least some peasant revolts (due to their impact on organized labor), I think it would be a stretch to extend the article to them. Instead, I propose we focus on informing on the generic issues of the peasantry in three articles: the one on 1907, the one on Greater Romania, and a future one on Poporanism (I suppose more recent stuff can fit into "Economy of Romania" and its subordinates).

Oh, btw: my emphasis on reliable sources in relation to the Soviet occupation article was not aimed at either you or Turgidson, but some guys I had to deal with on related issues (well, you know...); hopefully, one will not have to deal with Gomaisms and Tricolorul. Now, since a certain someone is watching my every move, this may have sown the seed for the usual type of disruption on that page as well... Dahn 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. On your first comment, there is one more reason to go with your second over the first version: anybody can argue against the title, nobody could argue against the sources (also, I'm not actually sure if all sources would agree that it was a de facto occupation in, say, 1953-57, while they may all agree that it was one in 1944-19something). Dahn 21:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I've noticed you invited a lot of people to the discussion. However some of them previously expressed some anti-russian sentiments while others are openly anti-communist (thus anti-sovietic). Don't you think you should invite some Russians too (as Russia received the Soviet Union's seat in the UN) ? They could present the Soviet POV. Anonimu 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You've just attacked the entire Russian nation. Should i mention this to them when i invite them to the discussion?Anonimu 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the absolutist russia exploiting its peasants (better said serfs) and the few proletarians in its almost non-existent industry, not to mention non-ethnic russians... Anonimu 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murat Yusuf, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Murat Yusuf

OK, n-am ştiut de regula asta. Am învăţat ceva nou :) Am adus numele la forma iniţială. Mentatus 06:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tezele din iulie

That's a surprisingly good article (Except the part where liiceanu is called a talented writer). Probably the sources have an important role in the article's quality (there's no volodea or cioro ;) ) The original version of the article was surprisingly good -except the part where liiceanu was called a talented writer- and had a good credibility. However, some people, out of jealousy i think, decided to destroy your felicitous article about a deformed workers' state by adding some sources susceptible of bias. Now people will think that's just another piece of right-wing propaganda or part of the revenge of an old-guardist fallen in disgrace. Anonimu 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so there. Dahn 19:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no prob (and I wouldn't call it "clean up" - btw, you probably saw I took some sort of an issue with using "ibid", because it strikes as counter-productive... and counter-revolutionary). Sorry for not getting back to you on the other issues: I have pressing stuff to do in real life and I can only handle the bare minimum (though I couldn't prevent myself from producing the one article - mainly because there was no Romania-related DYK entry under preparation at the time). More on that to follow tomorrow.

The other issue is best clarified if you check your talk page history:

• original post
• my reply
• (I make use of Cioroianu)
• first modifications to the original post
• (I make use of Tismăneanu)
• the festival continues. Dahn 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry for the confusion (to avoid this kind of misunderstanding, I generally make a citation after each sentence or so). Dahn 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh: I did have to use citneeded for Barbu's book - I couldn't find mention of that anywhere (whereas, incidentally, Preda speaks about the Canal in clear prose). In case you do have a citation, the article on Barbu could use it as well. Dahn 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, at least now Biru knows who Volodea is.Anonimu 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I frankly find it telling that you share the joy of Vadimists and other members of the Black Hundreds in using that nickname, Anonimu. The April Theses sure weren't lost on you ;). Dahn 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is CTP a vadimist or a black hundredist? And don't use the "black ***" thingie... you sound like stolo with his black quadrilateral...Anonimu 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you were to ask me, the July Theses weren't lost on him either. But I think he should be less troubled by that than you. About the Black Hundreds, I think the point eluded you. Try again. Dahn 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Even Cartarescu? Oh, thanks god we have people like cioro who weren't affected... Sorry, i miss the point... Anonimu 22:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The only think I can say is thanks for the link. It will sure come in handy for the article, once the buzz there is over. Dahn 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now don't use cartarescu.. he might be a good writer, but we all know he's pretty naive when it comes to politics... Anonimu 22:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Goma, huh? Dahn 22:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about goma except his highly dubious "saptamana rosie" and his childish attitude towards tismaneanu. he looks a bit crazy if you'd ask me... BTW, what was the point with the black 100?Anonimu 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least we can agree on something. See Black Hundreds for the point I was making. Ain't it funny how so many of Ceauşescu's supporters also reveal themselves to be that? Not that it is my business or my goal here, but any pro argum,ent about any stage of Romanian Communism strikes me as paradoxical and utterly inept - I tried to tell you before, I can respect Trotskyism on some level, I can even sympathize with some form of Luxemburgism etc., but anything in the sweet tune of Stalinism would discredit anyone and immediately reveal the grotesque alliance of putrid far right and far left in Romania. That's my view, and that is what I saw seeping out of all this scandal. All that talk about "old Stalinist guards" is utterly ridiculous - the actual evil is national communism, and everything in Romania from the moment Dej emerged from prison was floating in that area. Pauker's supposed internationalism, for all the evil it took part in, was nothing compared to "our guys", who both initiated that evil and continued it when Pauker was long gone. In that context, all variations from Pătrăşcanu to Miron Constantinescu, are morally bankrupt. So there. Dahn 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but... Ceausescu's supporters also reveal themselves to be what? a bit crazy? black hundreds? funny? ceausescu's supporters? good writers? i don't get it. If you're talking about the Romanian implementation of communism you're right to a point.. if you're talking about romanian communism in general... i can't agree with that...Why do you respect Trotskyism "on some level"? Just because the movement was repressed by Stalin? that's not a good reason. What scandal are you referring to? You're talking about evil in a moral sense, a christian one, or a metaphysical one? Cause, except maybe in a deformed christian interpretation or a mccarthyist one, i can't see any real evil.Anonimu 17:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your first question: Black Hundreds, when the mood suits them. Just ask yourself who was rehabilitating Antonescu in the 1980s... The scandal in question is the one involving Tismăneanu: if it weren't for the disgusting hypocrisy of Securitate henchmen and their various far right partners, we would just be having Goma making a fool of himself. Yes, I am talking about Romanian communism in general: aside from criminal, it was an innately corrupt system whose sole purpose was to support a quasi-monarchy under all sorts of weather. I some respect for Trotskyism for the same reason I respect the Jesuits: it takes intelligence to be a Trotskyist, to reformulate idiocy until it becomes an interesting sort of academic benign, to endlessly procrastinate the unlikely, and to ultimately proclaim that hell does exist, but it is always empty (which both Jesuits and Trotskyist seem to do). I also respect them somewhat because their conclusions are objectionable, but not entirely moronic (I can agree to disagree with both Trotskyists and Jesuits), and because, whatever their position lacks in, it does not lack in talent. I have the same kind of moderate interest in Syndicalists in relation to both Fascists and Anarchists - and even toward some Italian Fascists: absurdely wrong as they are, they are not ethically abhorrent. As for defining Evil: I define it based on my own criteria, as we all ultimately do. Just as I am not another, I couldn't possibly engage in a debate about whether I am right about being right, if you know what I mean. Nor did I or could I or would I ask you to debate the same. Dahn 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tismaneanu's report is not objective. Since the others were afraid that, if they talk against it, will be labeled "Securitate officers" (and that's bad, because the non-bourgeois still think that communists gave them work, houses and even food before ceasca went mad, while the securitate were the one oppressing the people - strangely ,ceasca gave the impression that he also thought that), we needed some guys to denounce it. Sorry, I can't agree with you in regard to Romanian communism. Anonimu 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more rhetoric. Dahn 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no rhetoric, truth. Anonimu 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Try again. Most of what I have seen you do is justifying the unjustifiable. In order for the word "truth" not to be utterly debased while sticking to Marxist dogma, you could be somewhat convincing if you turn "revisionist" or Troskyist or Socialist Libertarian or something. But truth and Neo-Stalinism just don't mix, and I suspect you know that yourself, given that you once in a while jump into the "degenerated workers' state" routine. Dahn 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's your fault you bring low quality sources such as "volodea"(to quote cartarescu) or cioro (btw, if he becomes foreign minister wouldn't he be in a conflict of interests... i mean a historian and part of gvt.. doesn't seem quite right). Trotsky was a marxist-leninist.(BTW, Trotsky is the only Marxist whose political works i've read in original... about the works of others i've read just syntheses, but even Trotsky can be considered a synthetisator of Lenin sometimes... ) As i've already said, i preffer not to be a conformist, and i pick from every version of communism what i think its good and can be implemented in the reality (some of trotsky's ideas regarding family life seem to extreme). Those were deformed workers' states... but they were still workers' state to a point...Anonimu 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources Anonimu, Vadim, Voiculescu, Marian Oprea and Goma find questionable are not rendered questionable for all the bad taste publicity stunts. You must not know what a conflict of interest is to get to make that speculation (not to mention that, if it were, it would also be for Iorga, Gheorghe Brătianu, Constantin Stere, Virgil Madgearu, etc., which is too absurd to even consider). The rest of your argument is, sorry to say, yet more rhetoric to justify the unjustifiable. What you call a "preference for not being a conformist" is one of those demagogic syncretisms that allow the stale praxis to save face by toying with various dogmas (i.e. an attempt to fool all the people all of the time). I am perfectly aware of were Trotsky stood in relation to Lenin - I'll say it again: if you have to be a Marxist, those are options I can have some respect for, with or without the Leninist content. All of them have seen the innate absurdity of praxis, and each has tried to pretend it could be avoided - even when Trotskyists blamed everything bad on Stalinism, they were at least doing it ith talent. Much more talent than it takes one to sit around presently and hijack their principles to make a point about how "life wasn't so bad back in the degenerate workers' state". Dahn 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey don't put me in the same series with Voiculescu ;). Cioro is in "a position of trust" (he is a historian), and would have "competing professional interests"(as a member of a liberal gvt). So he may use his position as historian to present liberal propaganda as facts. So we're back to the romanian mind-reading. Hey, at least i know were i stand, i'm not an adherent to some "strutocamila" like "nationalist communism", PRM or "anarcho-capitalism". Trotsky blamed also capitalism and british socialists. btw, romania was never a workers' state to be degenerated...Anonimu 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cioroianu is an a position of trust as an academic, and he is unlikely to lose tenure if he becomes a member of government (just as he did not when elected to the Senate); there is nothing in his status that would be breached, and he would not lose any grain of credit because Anonimu thinks he may (just as Iorga was no less of a historian for being a PM, and a lousy PM at it). The theory about "propaganda" is ridiculous. I can only assume you are presenting these false dilemmas in an attempt to abuse my good will in replying, but I assure you that I'm done debating on this topic (especially after being called to answer issues pertaining to mind-reading etc). Actually, you do not appear to know where you stand, and are not, IMO, very far removed from either of the examples you cite (except, I guess, "anarcho-capitalism"). I know what Trotsky also blamed, and it is not relevant to the point I was making. Dahn 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an ethical question: Is it right for a state official to write the history, especially the part about his political rivals? Iorga was not a good historians... is one of the best we have had... but when you compare (all) romanian historiography with (some of) the western one you'll notice that he was just a mediocre nationalist historian. I know very well were i stand. Maybe i'll write a book and call it _{my name}-ism. (Of course, now it's not the right time, cause communism, paradoxically, needs a pretty developed capitalism system exploiting people to succeed.) Yeah, i agree that sometimes i imply that i may side with Ceausescu's nationalist pov.. maybe i'm just a bit opportunistic.Anonimu 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

.

it's not sophistry, it's the truth. Anonimu 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The 200 figure is not reliable ("eye-witnesses to the incident estimate" 200, but how could they count under heavy fire? weren't they busy trying to stay alive?). And again, try using that logic your so fond of... after numerous encounters with armed groups trying to cross the border, wouldn't you expect a group trying to illegally cross the border to be armed?Anonimu 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1.You'll surely overestimate... you're in a stressful condition.... 2.It depends on the circumstances.. this was a justified act... 3. Probably if in 1918 Romania would have accepted a border following ethnic lines, this would have never had happened....Anonimu 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you know? The article implies that judging by the number the missing persons, there were about 50 casualties. Soviet border guard didn't know they were unarmed... and we don't know either... human shield was a trendy tactic... In 1918 romania would have had a word to say. khotin stayed more in polish hand than in moldavian&romanian ones, while storojnet was a jewish town... before the jews were exterminated by antonescu's troops.Anonimu 22:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What are bolshevist lies? MW says a massacre is " the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty". This is not the case here.Anonimu 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't now you're also a Holocaust denier. Probably all those jews went on holiday in transnistria and, antonescu, as a good man, wanted to help them by transporting them in trains used for cattle. And no, the act of the soviet was motivated, not atrocious, not cruel. Anonimu 17:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How should i call someone who calls a hero a guy who ordered the killing of hundreds of thousand of jews? He was trying to save them when he ordered the killing of 200 jews for every dead romanian officer, and 100 jews for every romanian soldier? soviet soldiers had all the right to shoot... the 200 figure is an overestimation... mass murder is what Antonescu has ordered to be done in odessa...Anonimu 17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The order no. 302.826 in which he demanded “immediate retaliatory action, including the liquidation of 18,000 Jews in the ghettos and the hanging in the town squares of at least 100 Jews for every regimental sector" is a good example? The fact that he didn't do nothing to some regat jews excuses him from being a holocaust perpetrator? Yes they had. This has nothing to do with the political or religious views of the soldiers (about which, anyway, you know nothing). It may be a massacre in a figurative sense. Just like some environmentalists use "massacre" for the killing of lambs before Easter (however the lambs didn't do anything illegal and there's no suspicion that they are armed)...Anonimu 18:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the lamest excuse i've heard.. even from a holocaust denier... Was he the commander of the troops in transnistria... did he decide to deport some jews from the regat and most of the jews from bukovina and bessarabia? Then yes, it was a holocaust perpetrator. I'm sure the authors of 9/11 thought the same about war and Islam.. this just shows you're just a fundamentalist... like most iron guard members. What else do you know? "scoti argintu viu, dezlegi cununiile legate, vindeci de deochi si descanti de bani si fericire"?Anonimu 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Metaphors and sarcasm aside, I'm with Anonimu on the Antonescu issue (though I think he's using these facts rather opportunistically). Dahn 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Most holocaust deniers say the same... romanians voted tony because they were "indobitociti" (flavour would have been lost in translation) by Ceausescu's nationalist policy. The ones killed by the orders of a nazi ally died in Holocaust. I thought the iron guard was the one setting up theaters for jews... And he didn't protect any jews, he was just indifferent to some of the jews in the regat. A guy responsible for the death of 300,000 jews is a Holocaust perpetrator. Please don't insult one of the great religions of the world. After indiscriminately insulting russians and muslims, what comes next? I've never said that... that would have been pretty strange, since the iron guard was disbanded some 60 years ago. And I'm the Truth... now who's better?Anonimu 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite what? the fact that holocaust deniers usually deny they are ones? Then you should stop speaking like one. What great service? He sent soldiers to die in the steppe for Hitler's dream? Sorry, i missed the part where he did something good. Now we cite Goma.. great... How would you fell if someone called your religion false? and you insulted russians on my talk page, of course, then you tried to find lame excuses. Hey, i've never claimed i'm "the life"...Anonimu 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, tomorrow i'll search something for you. Yes you do. She got that territories with no fight, so it was a kind of compensation. Yeah, he sat in Paris and wrote defamatory literature. great fighter he was... Go to my talk page and you'll see where you've insulted them. Yeah, you love despotism, authoritarianism, christian fundamentalism... something new? And i still do.Anonimu 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Romania did not fight in (for) Bukovina or Bessarabia in ww1. But they did nothing, even if the knew. Does "the forces of darkness to give their Satanic opinions" sound familiar? But those concepts were representative for Imperial Russia. Integralism... the wiki template on it's article says it all... why? Anonimu 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, you don't.. but an hour ago you did. And you are one. No, the romanian population of those territories decided, ignoring the will of the other nations, to unite with Romania. Like? Sorry, i was talking about russians, and your reply was the one quoted above. So you deny the objectivity and factual accuracy of wiki as a project? Why do you keep contributing then? God is a trinity. Can't the truth also be something similar?Anonimu 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But you still consider one of the main non-german Holocaust perpetrators a hero. In Bessarabia "romanians and moldavians" were just the plurality (but less than 50%), while in bukovina they were the second most populous nation, after Ukrainians. Wow... I was not talking about inviting only russians with a soviet pov... i was saying about inviting russians. So maybe what you wrote is not true either... I've never claimed that.Anonimu 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(*sigh*. this is why I don't trust communists...) K. Lásztocska 21:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right when saying that he's using this "opportunistically." In another forum, he took the opposite direction of defending Antonescu. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Send a link to my user account on that other forum with the discussion when i had such an attitude. I you're right (and i decide so) , i'll write "I am a hypocrite" on my wiki user page for a week. (note that there i usually was pretty ambiguous, and as the author, i have the right to interpret my "work" the way i want to ;) )Anonimu 19:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To be mean: he's been reading his Nechayev ;). Dahn 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

so i was right after all

about what? K. Lásztocska 22:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

about everything

you wish.

Illegitimi non carborundum

...to quote some advice that István gave me a few days back when I was in a rotten mood. :) I've noticed your fights with Anonimu, just wanted to say I support you 99% (I differ somewhat on the religious issues but otherwise I agree completely.) Don't let it get you down, my friend! :) K. Lásztocska 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

groupie luv? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs)

1. Sign your posts, Mr. Anonymous.
2. What?

K. Lásztocska 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well maybe István got it from you, I dunno. On another topic, WHAT?! You SUPPORTED Niyazov?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! K. Lásztocska 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, fun from a very safe distance, Mr. Hurray-the-ghost-of-Szalasi-is-rioting-in-Budapest. You have some pretty strange political views, I must say. That said, the decree banning lip-synching WAS pretty classic...K. Lásztocska 23:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Türkmenisztan, etc.

Yeah, I was afraid I was getting carried away with the weekly updates in the History section. :) A good article is a new idea.

I kind of like Turkey, historical grievances and their own societal/governmental problems aside. They have a neat language, a rich cultural heritage (including some awesome music and poetry), Istanbul is gorgeous, etc. Not sure what to think of a potential EU joining, and I do support some sort of independent Kurdistan, but I for one much prefer a secular government to a theocracy (especially of the repressive "Islamist" variety.) "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's," and all that.

Is it officially April Fools Day on-wiki yet? K. Lásztocska 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, my first prank has already been implemented. Unfortunately I think only Alensha will get the joke, and I haven't seen her lately.

As for the Curse of Turan: looks pretty bogus to me, I'm pretty sure we were all just random pagans back then, with perhaps the odd Khazar Jew. But it would have been such a tiny minority...and I seriously doubt there were many Magyar Muslims back then. K. Lásztocska 00:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A penguin in charge of the Norwegian army! Classic beyond classic! How's my userpage btw, is it funny to a non-Szegedi?K. Lásztocska 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was afraid of that. My latest effort is on J.S. Bach, he's learned a new instrument...K. Lásztocska 01:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never vandalized anything before--it feels strange. :) I also think I probably used the wrong license tag, so if I get banned, farewell...but not before a few more jokes.K. Lásztocska 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

2 more...this is devilishly fun. K. Lásztocska 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Who? K. Lásztocska 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaah, bring 'em on. Aren't you going to join the fun? (April fooling, I mean?) You could just do something stupid to your userpage like I did if you don't want to run the risk of getting in trouble. :) K. Lásztocska 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! That's too good to revert, I'll leave that up to Anonimu, who I will then accuse of being anti-April Fool-ist. :) It's rather late in my time zone so I'm logging off for now. More jokes tomorrow. :) K. Lásztocska 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

hey look, apparently I'm your "groupie" now. [9]. :-) K. Lásztocska 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, what's it look like? :) K. Lásztocska 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the inscriptions "religious freak" and "holocaust denier". You've been having a terrible few days here, haven't you, being attacked from all sides. :( Now that they've started mocking you for your religion I'm getting pretty pissed off--I generally don't agree with you about religious matters (I'm more of a Unitarian than anything else), but I completely respect your faith and won't think any less of you for it. Hmm. You and I should form the Transylvanian Cabal (secret sign: "♠♣♥♦") and make official T-shirts so everyone, even in the real world, knows to always assume the worst about us. :( K. Lásztocska 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

♣♥♦♥ is going to be fun indeed. You don't mind the attacks? Wow, you are stronger than I am. I get upset even when I'm not the one being attacked, as you can see from my mood now! I have to log off now but best of luck dealing with these messes. Also, have a wonderful Holy Week (and happy Easter a week in advance.) :) K. Lásztocska 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Referendums

Yes, good idea. We could add an entire section on referendums in your elections template, though actually filling in the gaps may take a while. On the other issue: I could not respect you less for having the opinion, even though I could never respect the said opinion. I have to say: I'm sorry that the right wing in Romania provides such lousy reference points, because you seem to have much more compelling and interesting views than any of them (though I still could not agree with them). I guess your conservatism obliges you to look into the past for comparison (I first noticed this when we were both looking at the Iron Guard's quasi-socialist etatism, and I remembered you said you were into anarcho-capitalism). Don't get me wrong, I don't hold this against you: in fact, it is a source for fascination. The good thing about being on the left, where I stand, is that you don't have to refer to any particular tradition :). Dahn 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To play the devil's advocate, it does make some sense in context: I mean, it could be Iorga or Take Ionescu or Rădulescu-Motru, but I'm guessing that their French-type "Masonry" radicalism is incompatible with any form of Orthodox conservatism. And then, the man was at least fanatically devoted to his path - unlike, say, Crainic and Ionescu and all the other charlatans :). Dahn 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Certainly, there is Stelescu's testimony (alongside some other notions Argetoianu and Călinescu liked to entertain about the man). His associations with the said charlatans and some others (shall we include Manoilescu here?) did make him "uns cu toate alifiile". But my comment was less about how little of a saint he was, compared to how far beyond the Liberal (read: Jacobin) pale his ideas were. Dahn 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, jeez, I didn't know. Is there any respectable source for that? It would be nice to add it to the article on him, but not if we would have to cite Puncte Cardinale or Rost. Btw, didn't Stephen the Great and Michael kill in cold blood? I'm guessing that, aside from his political dossier, Codreanu would be (hopefully) excluded by the fact that he was a smoker and a gambler (if you are to trust Călinescu, he also had the French disease...). Dahn 21:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Yes, the Mihai thing was a lapse (it is probably because I remembered someone proposed him for sainthood, and, not taking an interest into current BOR issues, it just stuck with me. Or maybe it was Gigi's imagery that got me all worked up :). So, what's the deal, then? You don't make it if you kill people with your own hand during peacetime? It strikes me as rather contrived, kinda like the Catholic Church burning people at the stake because Augustine or whomever said the Church should not have blood on its hands (although this story may be Protestant propaganda that was cherished by the Marxists). Dahn 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I can only hope that we don't end up with a(nother) Saint Corneliu. Better a Saint Gigi, at least he is yet to kill in cold blood. I guess I should thank Manciu for taking one for the team. :) Dahn 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is just so much that article needs, and so much work to be done in getting us there... I guess I was largely responsible for the final version of that sentence: someone introduced as a "fact" that he was killed by the Comintern, and I reacted a bit rashly at the time. I know there is much speculation about this issue (there are also other such diversions, including the rowiki theory that the Rebellion was caused by Soviet agents...). I would simply remove all that fragment, and revisit the entire article with sources when i can finally feel up for it. Dahn 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I remember seeing that on the news. Anyway, what do you think of my proposal on the notice board? Dahn 10:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I really wish you would ponder the "templates for cabinets" idea I had. Consider this: you add the template to all ministers present in x cabinet (which is roughly equivalent to the French model, but more useful); doing this establishes easy navigation and spears us the trouble we would have with the Australian model (where the principles of navigation would instruct us to carefully read the text and add the links at their exact place, while here we can just add a template to the bottom of the list). We would also avoid the annoyance of content forking and the infuriating tendency of creating new pages for each hopelessly little topic that is so cherished by some contributors. Also, I think I have seen it done before some place, so we would not be exactly frowned upon for unorthodoxy. What say you? Dahn 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. For the "more details"/"shuffles" issue, we could go with just listing all people who ever held office in a certain cabinet (we should maybe consider redesigning the existing template and future ones by listing ministry-respective ministers, instead of alphabetically listing all ministers). Also, sheer dates are or meant to be present in lists of ministers, and they are also likely to be present in articles on ministers (all of them one click away from the template), so I think we could do without them here. Do we start work on this? Dahn 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just created something here (based on Romania Libera, not sure if it is definitive). I improvised with the links (some ministries whose names changed I just pointed to the old links, and created a provisional redlink for the new one). And, drumroll, I have great news: it seems the Rompres list is currently full. Dahn 23:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On dates: I suggest we use that for clear re-arrangements during a single term (see the first cabinet of Gheorghe Tătărescu being split into four by Rompres); otherwise, there is really little reason to use it. On cabinet articles: no matter where we go with this, I think that having articles on cabinets is a bad idea, and the only thing it could produce is tired editors (9 out of 10, the reader wanting info on a cabinet will go through the PM articles, which can easily fill all things relevant, with additional details in articles on ministers and various events; it seems to me that a lot of things on German wiki are, in fact, headaches and the editors' failure to actually look before they leap or to generate policies). Between the article on the man, the article on the 1946 elections, the article on Communist Romania, the article on the Ploughmen's Front, what independent topic could really be developed in the article on the Groza government? Unless we start actually providing minutes of their meetings, which I hope we won't.

Feel free to add all you consider necessary to those templates I'm playing with, and looking forward to any suggestion (for example, i was arguably imaginative with colors, so if you find more concrete examples of the ones in use or just think others would look better, just change them).

Indeed, this is gonna be an exciting project. Dahn 01:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no prob with adding dates, I just wonder if they are necessary for all cases, or just the one I pointed out (the example you provide seems to agree with me). Yes, I guess we can add them to the top of the template - but note that ministers have their own "special" intervals in office, and I'm not sure if we should mention these as well.

I hope you're pulling my leg about the minutes of the cabinet. Surely, they could go to wikisource, but here? and an FAC at it? I don't think they'd fly by wp:not... Dahn 01:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. I'm having some problems with data (I suppose we won't use colors in single-party cabinets, but we could specify that party somewhere; it may also be frustratingly hard to acquire info on which minister belonged to what party). Dahn 03:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that vague period will always pose problems - they could be sorted if we add a "prehistory" section to the Conservative Party article, given that the group was basically the same, albeit not registered (at a time when no party was registered). But this is yet another article I am going to handle when I feel I can pile drive into it, not before (so many empty spaces, so little willpower... eh, I am after all Romanian). Dahn 20:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I guess I'm being creative with this one, but how do you feel about creating additional categories of the "Ministers of the Victor Ciorbea cabinet" in the future? Will we be heading for CfDs, or is tis reasonable? Dahn 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Are you a religious freak? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to your msg to Anonimu. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The New Central Asia project page

Hi

I revised (a bit radically) the navigation system of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia. The old page was a mess. You are a member of the project, I would appreciate if you would compare with the old page and give a feedback on the talk page. Thanks. cs 22:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom on July Theses

Hello,

Thanks for creating article on July Theses. Just for your information, I have nominated a DYK on this article, by having the following hook.

• ...that the full name of July Theses, a speech delivered by Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu, was Propuneri de măsuri pentru îmbunătăţirea activităţii politico-ideologice, de educare marxist-leninistă a membrilor de partid, a tuturor oamenilor muncii?

Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! The thing is, the hook we suggest should really be very interesting, to get qualified to be a DYK. At a first look into the article, I thought the full name of the speech was something interesting because of its length. Anyways, now that we have suggested both the facts, hope either of them will make it to main page. Thanks! - KNM ^Talk 04:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fântâna Albă

Hmm. While I agree with you, I think it would be better if you went to WP:RM this time. From the looks of the talk page, there appears to be a great deal of discussion about it, so I'm not sure if the page move would be controversial or not. I think a poll would be the best option (similar to the one at Talk:Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab). Khoikhoi 07:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Poate te ajuta aceasta harta topografica din preajma Primului Razboi Mondial. Localitatea se afla la sud de paralela 48° (in partea de vest a hartii) si este trecuta cu denumirea de "Fontina Alba". http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/200e/44-48.jpg Harta poate fi vizionata doar in marimea originala. Numai bine! --Olahus 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarians of Romania

Hi, yes, I know about the other groups of Bulgarians in Romania: the heavily assimilated Eastern Orthodox in Wallachia and the remainder of the Northern Dobrujan population. There was also a Bulgarian Roman Catholic population of Paulician origin (like most Banat Bulgarians) in Ilfov, in Popeşti-Leordeni and Cioplea, but most of it probably moved to Bulgaria, at least I know of some settlement in Dragomirovo, Veliko Tarnovo Province. The rest must have been assimilated, judging by the ethnicity and religion data in Popeşti-Leordeni#Demographics ;)

Indeed, Bulgarians in Romania would be a good summary article. We could also include the urban emigration in the 19th century, the so-called hashove, who included many revolutionaries and authors, e.g. Hristo Botev. Unfortunately, although I know of some books that would make great sources, I don't think they're easily obtainable. Also, modern information on the Wallachian and Northern Dobrujan Bulgarians is generally scarce, unlike the extensive studies on the Banat Bulgarians :( Here's one rather short article I could dig up — don't be scared by the publisher, the author is generally a pretty credible guy and an established historian.

P.S. Those "Croats" in 1930 may well be mostly Krashovani, a group of similar descent as the Banat Bulgarians, originating on the other bank of the Timok, who Bulgarian and some foreign researchers claim are Croatized Bulgarians, a view shared by the Banat Bulgarian intellectuals in the 1930s at least. Another thing, could you briefly retell what that article about the village says? I'm pretty curious :) Todor→Bozhinov 11:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't recall

Remove it for now if you like. - Francis Tyers · 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bun venit

Mulţumesc Biruitorule, e bine să ştiu că sunt aşa de mulţi români. Nu aş fi crezut că sunt aşa de mulţi. --Grigoras.Iliescu 08:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure

A duck is a duck :) Do you have a central board discussion and polls get reported to? I do note interesting ones at WP:PWNB, feel free to take a look - there are some interesting deletions still open currently and some other ongoing discussions, several of them involving our common colleagues and topics, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is amusing how some people try to prevent information about certain discussions and polls from spreading :) It is annoying, but this is just a form of personal attack.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Anonimu probably thinks I'm your sockpuppet now. :) K. Lásztocska 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. :) U know I'm ur loyal groupie 4 EVER & EVER!!!! :) K. Lásztocska 22:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm going to be up all night trying to figure out what that cryptic inscription means--kind of reminds me of this stuff. K. Lásztocska 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just tell me--you know I like to keep my real life and wiki life separate, and e-mail is a disturbingly fluid bridge between the two. K. Lásztocska 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"added dimension"? are you really a dangerous radical or something?! K. Lásztocska 03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, that was a ridiculous question. *cringe*. K. Lásztocska 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that'll be fun to watch. :) Just don't hurt the Székely. K. Lásztocska 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

replied

Once more, wrapping things up. :) Glad it's not as dire as my overactive imagination feared... :) K. Lásztocska 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article July Theses, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Q:

Hi. Quick question: should we link the "Religion and Education Ministry" from back in the day to the Education Ministry? Also: I have not been presented with one valid reason as to why pages for ministries and lists of ministers should be separated, especially since the former look like they were made up to be puny stubs, and especially since people cannot decide whether to link to the Ministry or the List in related pages; my suggestion is to merge the two sets of articles with their respective counterparts. I'm also saying this because we now have material for many other lists, and, quite frankly, I think we should add them to the articles. How do you feel about these issues? Oh, btw, we should perhaps add party affiliation to the lists. Dahn 02:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I entirely agree with what you last posted, and will edit accordingly. This mainly to wish you a Happy Easter. Dahn 09:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Kurdistan. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Kurdistan related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page!. Thank You.

Image:Karlhabsburg.jpg

Hi Biruitorul, why should this one be PD? --Flominator 09:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't originally upload it - Incitatus of pl.wiki did, but he's no longer active. My best answer, I'm afraid, is "because it's old". -- Biruitorul

Thanks anyway. --Flominator 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New re

Hi. No, I cannot actually think of any reason (I just translated it ad hoc, and, yes, your version does sound better). It is, however, pretty demanding to change, and I'm currently looking into something else entirely. In case you want to do the changes before I revisit the templates, I would appreciate it: after I dealt with the Năstase template and its complications, and had to do it twice (an edit conflict that engendered an error, don't ask), all that script kinda dancing in front of my eyes, so I'll be taking my time. And, of course, thanks for all the help. Dahn 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hristos a înviat!

Indeed! Health, peace, love! Mulţumec Biruitorul! NikoSilver 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian Names in Transylvania

I definitely do not want a revert war, but like I said: Hungarian names and other minority names ARE official in all communes and municipalities in Romania, where the minority represents 20% or more of the population, Hungarian names are in parentheses. I made the template myself as there are very few for Romania, I thought this would be a good thing, not something that is edited all the time, especially using parentheses! DávidSch 16:56, 10 April 2007 (CET)

Lucjan Dobroszycki

(You wrote)
Good article - but - an Amazon review? Should we be citing those? Biruitorul 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Amazon.com informs us that:

"The company began as an online bookstore. While the largest brick-and-mortar bookstores and mail-order catalogs for books might offer 200,000 titles, an online bookstore could offer many times more."

It is fair to assume that with amazon.com being one of the biggest book sellers world-wide and outnumbering its closest competitor Barnes and Noble, the book reviews provided by amazon registered users (with names confirmed by the use of online credit cards) could be considered a viable source of additional information. BTW - I'm glad you liked the article. --Poeticbent  talk  20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Take Ionescu... please, take Ionescu

Hi. Sorry for the delay, but stuff kept piling up. Your questions about Marina are entirely justified, and the final version of the article should reflect both views (though, well, not through Rost). However, I know next to nothing about the man - this is the sort of article were I could intervene only through the sheer serendipity of bumping into sources. If I had to make my own guess, I think he was both a survivor and a pal, though one would have to question why he allowed his relations to award him the position, but not to avert persecution of his subordinates - you may say that persecution was much reduced in comparison to what happened to all the other churches and religions, but, IMO, that only adds to it ("capul plecat, sabia nu-l taie"). I mean, I do understand that the Orthodox Churches have "render onto Caesar" at their doctrine's core, but, as an outsider, I have to wonder if that attitude ever led to something good. (Well, given that I was editing an article about a socialist while everyone was at Mass, you are perfectly entitled to view my opinion on this issue as really, really irrelevant.:D)

On the whatshisname from Arad issue, I did a quick google check, and I suppose we could write a two-paragraph article on the man. But I'm willing to bet we won't. In any case, I agree his notability is borderline, but I'm not sure if it is AfD material.

If you have the time and will, could you please review my Take Ionescu? I'm pretty sure some rewording is in order, but I ran out of ideas trying to make the text non-repetitive, and some first-hand translations could be improved upon. So, if you have any questions about the latter, do voice them (I'll provide the original texts where they should prove to be needed). Btw, the pun I used in the title probably calls for an IPA version of his name in the article - but I cannot work with IPA (I understand it, but I'm no good at using it). Dahn 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and, yes, necessary changes. On your five points:

1. Yes, we should make a note of it, so I'll add it. This brings to mind an issue I had reflected upon for a while. We seem to be moving toward creating articles on [all] defunct counties sometime in the future... well, you know, mañana. I was going to pick your brain about how we should do it. I think that the simplest and most reasonable way is to add content for former borders in counties that kept their names (despite mutating randomly), and create additional articles only for the extra ones (Muscel, Covurlui,... well, you know, the "abuziv desfiinţate" ones). I am not married to the idea, so please tell me if you object and why.
2. As you may remember, I was actually involved in a dispute over that issue, and hence timeo danaos ;). The full issue is that the city simply did not have "Constantinople" as its official name, but something else altogether. If we discuss its name in English (per "Bucharest"), I think that Constantinople and Istanbul were both in use at the time, and, aside from its political undertones, the issue of it not being official would be equivalent to replacing "Bucharest" with "Bucureşti", and, for that particular period, with "Bucureşcĭ". I generally use "Istanbul" for stuff going on in the 1700s or earlier, and doing so may be more debatable there (though I won't put up a fight, I still don't think I'm wrong when I do it), but I think that, for anything after 1800s, the issue of "what was official" is, at its source, a sophistical piece of propaganda.
3. I wondered about that as well, but then decided not to go with "Former". What we have is a source telling us that he was an atheist at some point in his life - we do not know for sure he stayed that way (my guess is that he rather moved to a facade Orthodoxy), and he was probably never an committed atheist, but rather an indifferent, if explicit, one. I'm not saying I am right in making that judgment, so, if you say "Former" does still apply, I will not object.
4. Yes, they most likely did (sources I used gave both OS and NS dates).
5. Well, I didn't mean diplomatic relations, but relations in general. I tried to find a term that would not risk implying an actual conflict, and that is what I came up with - so feel free to rephrase. Dahn 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Biru. The power source on my computer burned out, and I haven't been able to fix it yet. I will answer your message as soon as I do, with due excuses (I had even written part of the reply when it all went black...). Incidentally, I had just found a source for counties as they were ca. 1859, and I'm going to pass on the info as soon as time permits me. Sorry for all this. Dahn 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bierut

By all mean, add the note that it was a week after the secret speech, that's interesting. Why do you think we need a citation for Bierut being Stalinist? I don't think there is a single source disputing that...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it was Irpen - I should have known he would question the obvious. Well, citations added ('Stalin of Poland' :D).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

By all means, don't hesistate to add that to article, looks great. Btw, Bierut died about 2 weeks after the speech (I've just checked dates).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll add Światło to my 'to translate' list. I found a good English article on him recently: The defection of Jozef Swiatlo and the Search for Jewish Scapegoats in the Polish United Workers' Party, 1953-1954.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alwatan

Hi. Just wanted to thank you for your copyedit of the article. :-) —Anas ^talk? 03:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

re: attacks

Hi Biru,

I'm not sure what to do. Any sort of official process would be complete suicide on my part--I made more than a few rude comments to Anonimu on the Fantana Alba page (my "Trotskyist" rant was one of my finer moments), and those would just leap out of the woodwork to bite me in the butt if the issue got any sort of scrutiny. Not to mention the simple fact that even communicating with you anymore makes me a big, fat, inviting target for more sick accusations of being a "groupie"--I have to wonder if he actually knows all the, erm, connotations that word has in English?!--or a "lackey" or your "servant." (Does he just get a kick out of picturing me in a little-French-maid costume in Romanian national colors, or something?!) I'm also especially busy in real life for a week or so starting tomorrow, so I won't have time to deal with any sort of proceedings. Keep an eye on the situation, we'll deal with it once I have more time. K. Lásztocska 04:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

With the demaise of WP:PAIN, for better or worse, there are three ways to deal with the problem: admin's interest lottery on WP:ANI, untested WP:CEM with possibility of civility parole, or long and time devouring plough through WP:DR... For what it's worth, I have warned him - but both of you, make sure you behave better than him (or to be fair I'll have to warn you too...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, you interrupted me! :) Biru: message understood. ♠♣♥♦ is the secret sign! Long live the Transylvania Cabal! (I'm actually rather proud of my "Trotskyist" rant, I'm almost getting to 19th-century standards of the Art of the Insult. But Eduard Hanslick still rules, I'm afraid....wow, that was a non sequitur.) K. Lásztocska 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

King Michael Coup

I merged some wiki sections into this article. By all means, it probably needs a different name, redirects and a copyedit... but would make a good DYK if expanded (a royal coup...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis

I don't know where you took your info from, but I did a good deal of research and found it's Metropolis, as justified by both use and dictionaries. I had quite a long discussion with Dahn on the subject. Can you provide your sources for "Metropolitanate"? Dpotop 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pamela Brown

You said she "seems to have died in Avening" in the comment on your recent change. I think she actually died in a hospital in London. Although I've never seen any documents confirming that. She's certainly buried in Avening, with Michael Powell buried next to her. -- SteveCrook 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC) The Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society

Hmmm, I'll have to double check some of those dates. I was sure Frankie died before Pamela moved in with Powell. Although Frankie did put up with quite a few very open affairs - like with most of his leading ladies. He was living with and proposed to Deborah Kerr but she moved to America to take up film offers there -- SteveCrook 09:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi. I've decided not to take part in the mediation since I do not have so much time now to focus on this issue. I wasn't involved in the discussion too much anyway (I mean not as much as you guys). Thanks for considering me - and I hope you're gonna find somebody better for the job (Dahn maybe?). However, I won't post my disagreement on the mediation page until you find somebody else to replace me. Please let me know, Mentatus 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. Mentatus 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Previously deleted articles

I deleted the both of them, again. Let me know if they pop up again, and I'll SALT them. Thanks for the heads up. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry! :(

Hi Biru, please accept my sincere apologies for my rude and trollish comments on the 1848 page. I'm running on fumes right now (or rather, on three hours of sleep--had to pull an all-nighter last night) and also had a good day suddenly turn rather sour this afternoon. Of course, that is no excuse for my behaving like an utter ass. Please forgive me, it won't happen again. K. Lásztocska 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So we're cool? :)

Regarding '48, like I've been saying, yes, their original motives had nothing to do with oppressing anyone, it was about ending the repressive rule of the Habsburgs. I've been dipping in and out of a good book abou 48, "The Lawful Revolution" by István Deák--check it out sometime, it's very thorough, generally clearly written and unbiased one way or the other. Oh, and as for Horthy--as you know, the '30s and '40s were one of the darkest times in Hungarian history. Horthy and Szalasi do not speak for Hungary, never have and never will. K. Lásztocska 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

♠♣♥♦ check the other place--urgent!KL

Yup, back at you over there. :) K. Lásztocska 04:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, same to you. :) (LOL, I never realized that Dracula was a Székely...!) :) Szia! K. Lásztocska 15:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha! That's great! Count Dracula sounds like a real old-fashioned Kuruc. :) (I like the references to "Turkeyland"--and who couuld have guessed that Bram Stoker knew the word honfoglalás?) I guess I'll finally have to read that book. :) I've only seen the movie version with Bela Lugosi, which is surprisingly good when you consider it was made in the Thirties, e.g. at the height of the cheesily-bad horror movie era. K. Lásztocska 18:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Let me re-phrase: I was surprised at how good the movie was, since I had previously thought that the Thirties were an era of laughably cheesy horror movies--a perception based on hearsay and not on empirical evidence. (I actually hadn't seen any of the other films you mention, and still have only seen one or two. Looks like I have some catching up to do...) K. Lásztocska 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles I of Austria's conflict with Miklós Horthy

On 19 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles I of Austria's conflict with Miklós Horthy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

No bad intention. I just did not see the message. Thanks for the interesting question. Presidents are "chief of command" in Turkey. I know that to be a president military officers has to resign. However, this rule started beginning with his second term. Exact date of his resignation should be within the first term, but he was a president at that time. He was president when he died. Does that mean he died as an officer? There is no picture of him with military uniform after he became president. Does that say anything. I really have no idea. I guess we need to check his will. If he died as an officer, there has to be some compensations from army. That information should be in the book "Çankaya" which I do not have it in my hand. This is a good question. I will keep that question in mind and give you and update. I'm sorry again. No bad intention. --OttomanReference 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

30 Oct 1924 was the date for the law I was talking about. 30 June 1927 was his retirement from army. According to Turkish military web side; he has never own the title and sub branch army established its own structure after his death. I think presidency gave him the powers to act and he had the authority (skill and trust of nation). So should we take his "retirement" as the date. --OttomanReference 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{prod}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Oo7565 05:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AfDs...

Are you looking to nominate the articles? I think that the discussion would be mixed, but my guess is that the end result would either be keep or merge them into the main article. However, my guess is that the dicussion would call for the clean-up of the articles, namely the price of DSL, etc. Does that help? If not, just let me know! Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you're not watching my page, I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Torb37

In my opinion, you should ask TodorBozhinov to leave a message on his talk page in Bulgarian, perhaps then he will listen. If that fails, take the matter to WP:AN/I. Khoikhoi 05:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, then try that, I suppose. Khoikhoi 05:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sălaj

Salut, cred (nu am fost implicat în discuţie) că problema e nu dacă sălaş provine din szállás, ci dacă numele judeţului provine într-adevăr din sălaş. Conform lui Öcsi, etimologia numelui ar fi Zilah (de unde provine şi Zalău), care la rândul lui ar proveni din latinescul Silva (vezi şi Talk:Etymological list of counties of Romania#Other Names). Nu sunt filolog (deşi mă pasionează subiectul), cred că Bogdan e expertul în domeniu. Mentatus 07:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Soviet occupation of Romania [10]

Filed. Please confirm awareness. -- Biruitorul 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Re: Soviet occupation of Romania

Well, the fundamental question you have to ask yourself is what you hope to get out of arbitration. We can't make any rulings that deal with article content directly, so we can't actually "solve" the underlying dispute; is there something you want to see us do that you couldn't do yourselves through further discussion? Kirill Lokshin 20:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not directly, no. The only real remedy of that sort would be putting an article on probation, which would allow administrators to ban disruptive editors from it; but you'd essentially be back to having to convince an admin that a particular editor was being disruptive. Kirill Lokshin 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um momento, por favor

Hi. I'll get back to you on all that and your previous queries (I'm currently working on revamping the National Renaissance Front) - I do some minor edits on the side, but I'm focused on that for the moment. Feel free to join me in the process (I could sandbox it or something). A quick answer: yes, I got it from you, and it has meme potential (hope you don't mind I disseminated it). Btw, when I read the message header, I got a shock (I thought I was being scolded for something :). Sorry again for the delay. Dahn 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good point. I remember meeting the same problem when I was working on that article: most sources said 1935, but Veiga used 1934. I made a note of it, and I remember I then found confirmation somewhere that the first steps were taken in 1934, but the process was completed in 1934. But then I forgot. The thing is that Veiga says 1934 because, based on the note accompanying the mention, he researched the press and found mention of Straja celebrating 5 years of existence in 1939 (the problem with Veiga is that he was writing from outside Romania in Ceauşescu's times, and, for part of his work, he had to rely on incomplete clues - while the other part is created from precious sources that no Romanian historian had had access to). Well, I think this may be dependent on what the magazine was actually celebrating: the start of the end of the Straja-creating process? In case it was the start, the sources do not actually disagree. Dahn 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I found the more explicit info (all i can say is that there is no online source mentioning 1934). If I should bump into something, I'll add it there asap. (The book where I took the oath from was sheer fluke: I was staying over at a relative's house and happened to notice it around; unfortunately, the rest of the book is only about tying knots and building campfires.) Dahn 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Axis powers of World War II

No problem. As long as the states are mentioned I'll be happy. Mgiganteus1 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Adams FAC

In response to your comments: That was one of the last sections I worked on, and even though I looked at a number of sources, both online and in books, I could not find any substantial details of his governorship. In any case, I'll see if I can find any more information that I can add to the article. The problem is that he mostly stepped away from the political scene after the Constitution was ratified, and he did not "do much" while in political office. Well, that's how I perceive it as. Thanks for commenting on the FAC, Nishkid64 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well after looking through more sources, I found some interesting stuff to include (and stuff I had forgotten earlier) so I had a good deal to add to the State Politics section of the article. For my expansion, see this. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Procesulcomunismului

Hi. I have a quick question. I remember you asking me if "procesulcomunismului" was a reliable source. Although I have always considered the links a bit subjective and sometimes outright annoying, I was prepared to assume that they were acceptable. Plus, although I know next to nothing about him, Ioniţoiu seems to be respectable (I based this assessment on the fact that he was mentioned as a researcher in an interview published by 22). But then... I happened to click on a link for to a Legionary site (miscarea.net), and noticed that they have the same link icon as procesulcomunismului... compare [11] and [12]. It is just after that I noticed the link icon could be seen as and probably is a stylized Cross of the Archangel (and with a green dot). The question is: where does that leave us? I mean, the site itself is somewhat partisan, but not necessarily partisan with the Iron Guard. Yet, I am beginning to have serious doubt about its nature. Again, I have to be pissed off that neutral Romanian sources are hard to come by, and, if this should be confirmed, that various diversions of the CivicMedia type induce loony political agendas under the guise of "respectable content", without being properly exposed (let alone countered by respectable sources). Dahn 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Biru, my exact grievance was not that the content is unreliable (as I have said, it is not) but that it is. I would agree wholeheartedly to using not just parts, but the entire content, as a source - if they had done the right thing and published it in a neutral context. The same goes for the Rostarticles you cite. It is exactly the reverse process of Communist sources - while Communism extended its suspicion of bias over non-political sources, thus calling for a selection and a toning down (the same as for using the Cugetarea encyclopedia, which is filled with Antonescian propaganda - aside from being exceptionally poorly written, and the only encyclopedia to end it sentences in exclamation points!). The "diversion" I was referring to is publishing non-political material in connection to a source of very objectionable politics, and not stating it. I did not call ask for us to expose this relation, but wondered why third-parties don't do it, and why third-parties do not establish reliable venues on similar issues. I also happen to agree with your point about Legionaries as victims (and victims as marginal perpetrators), but I still find no justification for Ioniţoiu's stance - if one wants to make such a clear and non-political point about the Legionaries, the last place to do it is an apologetic venue...

This, to me, means that a person that wants to contest the information contained in the source and the use of the site as a source now has grounds for it (and I'm sure you can think about someone who may want to do that). Though, based on this, I will think hard about using it myself, I will not be removing it and will not prevent anyone else from using it. But I will not be considering its removal vandalism. (My position on Rost remains as was - I still don't think it should be used at all.) Dahn 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note: I recently added some info to Alexandru Nicolschi, which also relates to some stuff we were talking about at some point. Anyways, check out the first quote from Georgescu (yes, that is a full phrase, verbatim) - I now have full confidence in Tismăneanu's statement that his mother Hermina had not managed to teach Georgescu any Russian because "he did not have any notion of grammar". Dahn 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting you mention Vosganian: his defense, when the issue was brought up, was that he never actually contributed, but that Rost took the liberty of printing an article by him which had already been published elsewhere. If this is true, and if it happened with other "contributors", then Rost fits neatly in the pattern of disinformation so-very-present in CivicMedia, AlterMedia and other mushrooms, not to mention Ziua (putting up up a "respectable" front to spew out just anything). We could have an entire conversation about what these "independent journalists" have allowed themselves to publish and why (you know Roşca-Stănescu, the proven Securitate informant and regular visitor of the Prosecutor's Office, who keeps pointing out that this and that guy was connected with the Securitate, based on what other Securitate informants keep telling him). At the very least, Ziua apparently discarded Roncea - I think it was because of the disgusting character assassination of Liiceanu (incidentally, coming the moment Liiceanu made it clear that he was supporter of the VT Report...). And then the Valerian Stans and the Dan Ciachirs and the whatnots. J'accuse.

Forgive the rant, but I feel that these people have truly gone too far, and have placed themselves in a position where anything goes. And what is happening now in Romania because of them and their clique is truly outrageous. I do not know if Rost fits in their, but it looks like its staff is made up of the "energetic young men" who have specialized in diversions and duds. I would welcome a Conservative press that does not use "conservative" as an euphemism (and one for such a revolutionary idea!), and does not train in spit-shining some dark legacy - even if it be because they decide to support Gigi (I never though I'd say it, but in this country we can still do far worse than Gigi, and we have a Parliament to provide us with the much worse).

Boorish? Come on, he looks like Tintin... :) Just because they have a number hanging from their necks... :)

Yes, I can see that article (though the "how many stones does it take to make a pile" argument could call for some other ttle - "killings"? "murders"?).

Interesting stuff with the driver and all. Provides some god info on the side (I didn't know the two Steres were related...).

I have rephrased it a bit (what I wanted to say is that he "rose in the ranks of the party" or something, AFAIK, by synthesizing some info from several spots in the same place; I don't have the book near me, though, so, in case I misread or misinterpreted the issue, feel free to change it; I shall revisit the text to see how that came up and if it is erroneous). Dahn 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I probably got lost in all the details at the time.

The issue is that one risks a lot when he launches into that type of campaigning (SRS simply half-apologizes discreetly and starts all over again whenever Patriciu tells him to). If at all exposed for this crap, they still manage to do a lot of damage and it goes unchecked. Why? Because they attack on all fronts, all at once, and aim to get all sorts of sentiments into the mix. What is really infuriating is when one sees the thief yelling thief. And you know what this had led to on wikipedia... Dahn 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On other issues:

• I kinda put my project with cabinet templates on hold. Yes, I admit it, I got a bit bored. But then it was also that I got stuck trying to work out Averescu's second. Okay, I think I can work out all those ministers who came from the PCD. But then, we have Inculeţ as Minister of Something, which would imply that the Bessarabian Peasants' Party was in government. I could not find confirmation that this was the case, and then there's the fact that Sergiu Niţă had split with him in order to join Averescu. So then, what the hell was Inculeţ doing there? In any case, we covered those in the post-revolutionary era, which is something. (If I could have it my way, I would have sorted all pre-1945 cabinets in the sandbox or some other page, work out the quirks, and only then begin spreading them. Although I don't criticize Ronline for gluing them in articles.)
• I've got a proposal. What say if, sometime in the near future, we pick out an article on a major Romanian figure that is less controversial - an I. C. Brătianu, a Iorga, a Maniu - and, between the two us, gather all relevant info and sources we have access to, and bring it to FA status or thereabouts? We can all both take a break from other issues, and do something that is relatively easy. Dahn 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Rochford

Thanks for your fixes here. My bad - normally I'd have picked up those obvious problems but I was trying to help a much newer and younger editor get it to DYK nom's before time ran out and was also running out the door to drive to Melbourne at the time. Appreciate your support. Cheers--VS ^talk 09:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• No No nothing about your edit summary upset me at all - that's one of the benefits of DYK's - lots of other editors looking at them. Cheers!--VS ^talk 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuil cat

Bear in mind that the East-West Schism only happened in 1054, so even if our tsars were technically following the Byzantine and not the Roman rite prior to that, they were formally just Christians :) I'm not sure if it really is necessary to categorize them that way (even Samuil), although I wouldn't mind really. I mean, we don't typically attach such religious categories where they are not surprising.

P.S. Another thing — Boris and later Kaloyan had a short love affair with Rome, and Kaloyan can somewhat jokingly be considered an Uniate (he united the Bulgarian church with Rome in exchange for recognition) :) Even later, Ivan Sratsimir was (briefly?) forced to become a Roman Catholic while in Hungarian captivity… so you see, the situation is not really that simple. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 09:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ferdinand was a Catholic as far as I know. It would be great if someone translates the French article on Boris III, it's pretty impressive. You're correct in thinking the Orthodox church doesn't have as much influence here as elsewhere, and generally church-going is at very low levels. Not sure about the reasons, perhaps it might be the subject of an interesting study. Although I'm a believer, you wouldn't see me in the church either — actually, I like keeping it simple and have some resentment to all the non-biblical dogmata, the artificial hierarchy and the divisions between Christians. Anyway, that's another thing :) Simeon doesn't really have much support left, a better timing for the coup might have been his early years in Bulgarian politics :P If it weren't for the Communists, Boris would have reigned a lot longer, he was appreciated by his subjects as an Unificator (as Bulgaria occupied much of the Bulgarian ethnic territory during WWII). Though who knows...

I'm OK with adding these categories at least for the Second Bulgarian Empire (which was post-Schism), but I wouldn't mind the First Bulgarian Empire too — the schism in 1054 was just formal, differences in the two rites had existed long before that. Todor→Bozhinov 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Marshall

Thank's that's helpful. I'll use it! Paul B 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Biruitorul

I have a serious problem with one of your userboxen. May I elaborate? NikoSilver 11:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is about the anti-SI box, which really gives it to my nerves! :-)

If I may elaborate, explain the following coincidences and judge for yourself if they constitute reasons to start thinking with it:

• The distance from the equator to any pole is exactly equal to 10,000,000 meters.
• One atm is equal to earth's atmospheric pressure, which is equal to one kilo per one square centimeter.
• Going down 10 meters deep in the sea (natural salt water), increases the pressure by 1 more atm. 20 meters by two and so on.
• The gravitational accellaration (g) is almost equal to 10 meters per square second.
• The speed of sound is 1 Mach which is about 1,000Km/h in regular airplane flight altitude (~12,000m). (280m/s x 60sec x 60min =~1,000,000m/h = 1,000Km/h)

I find the above very helpful in both navigation and scuba-diving which I regularly practice as hobbies (see userbox). I don't know any details regarding if they just happened to match (by some kinda Divine intervention or relative crap) or if they were created as such by scientists for the purpose of simplicity. UK scuba-divers I've buddied with, also use meters and atms because anything else is really-really very complicated. By the way, the only relative coincidence I can think of as an example to the contrary is:

• One Nautical mile is exactly equal to the sea-level distance between any two points on earth that are exactly one minute of a degree (1/60 of a °) apart on any meridian.

But of course that is the reason why the Nautical mile was created by the navigators (in contrast to the Imperial statute mile which is about 15% shorter), so that they could be able to easily calculate distances on maps by only using vertical coordinates. The math is quite interesting:

1Nm = ~1852m

1852m x 60 (minutes) = 111,120m

111,120m x 90(° from equator to pole) = 10,000,000m

If you have any contradicting examples, please fill me in, coz I guess the metric propaganda has made me totally unaware of them! No I drop it before I make you a Metric Martyr! :-) You imperialist you! NikoSilver 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Enosis? LOL! The extremest position I can imagine a Greek having on that would be to be indifferent; but against?

And I thought I had serious argumentation on the metric/Imperial debate! BTW, none of the examples above were somehow set to be like this. Neither the millimeter, which was used before they calculated Earth's vertical circumference. It just happened. Anyway, it all started because I wanted to accuse you of Imperialism... How could I imagine that you are suffering from metrophobia as well! :-) NikoSilver 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am of those who think that the highest authority of a nation should not have executive powers, so be it a King, or a president, it doesn't really matter. Except from the fact that different people end to enjoy the goodies of pseudo-leaderhip. NikoSilver 23:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A question

Could you please tell me what __NOTOC__ means? You added it at the top of the article Golden Boy and I don't recall ever seeing it before. Thanks! SFTVLGUY2 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Back on track

For Biruitorul to illustrate his points

Hi. I really allowed myself to drift off, and I'm really backlogged. So, no matter what you may say, I think I really owe you an(other) apology.

Thank you for the kind comments and the hint on Sebastiani. In case you have the time, could you please look into more of the text? I was kind of focused on adding details in their proper place, and the grammar may still be limping (I kept finding errors after I nominated it, and I want to be safe rather than sorry). It is an interesting read, if I dare say it: I knew virtually nothing about him, and now it seems to me that I've contributed a summary of European history from 1789 to 1848. I mean, the guy was everywhere!

Turns out my computer wasn't actually burnt out (thank God): it's just that I keep it open (literally), and thick dust had set on the components, which I'm guessing caused a malfunction somewhere; I took the components out and put them back in, and now it works like a charm. Well, perhaps not like a charm, but let's say it works.

On the counties issue: I still think the best way is not to flood the place with new articles, especially since these are bound to be small. Yes, I'm an inclusionist :). If we add a history section to each one in existence, and if we create maps, we could cover all apparent discrepancies and even get some FAs out of it. Of course, we should have separate articles for the regions etc. I would suggest rowiki does the same, but I'm incommunicado with them (I recently noticed users here take my name in vain over there, so screw that project). I know I promised to get you some stuff on the first counties, but I have lost the reference (it was in a Magazin Istoric that I had opened at that page, but I since moved stuff around and forgot about it, so I need to search it again). It is really interesting, and deserves more attention from me: it is actually a facsimile of an act listing members of the ad-hoc divans. Most of them are nobodies (especially people from the third college, lest for Moş Ion), but it makes for a comprehensive list of what was, in theory at least, Romania's first legislature. So we're going for two birds with one stone once I get there.

I know very little detail about Blaga's poetry - I should have it around somewhere, and I may have access to works of criticism, but I would need to look into it. On the other hand, Lusophilia in Romania has another prominent representative (though his kind of Lusophilia is rather problematic...). About soap operas: I don't think the statement is correct, and I don't think that the "phenomenon" is notable, but we have had Esclava Isaura about 16 years ago (ungazungazungeee...). On Eminescu and that poem, I couldn't really tell you - but then again, he did work with the themes in several other poems, and this could form the basis of something. One day, I think I will revisit his page and try to add a lot of stringent stuff. (For now, I am really annoyed that Timpul redirects to the Party article, and I would really like to recreate it and expand the other article in the future).

I actually had the same kind of doubts about Librescu's cat, albeit not precisely for the same reasons. I can see it working for now, as a provisional thing, but we could consider a cat of "our own", as can-of-wormish as that may become. Survivors of Antonescu's experiment I know of so far include Librescu and Ghizela Vass, so this may not be in the cards yet. [Oh, I almost forgot Celan!] But we should be able to come up with something more comprehensive once the core issues are dealt with (the very concept of Holocaust in Romania lacks a single autonomous article, as opposed to a minuscule section in the main article, which troubles me); I have proposed something to Jmabel a while back, and we seem to have agreed on principle, but it is an immense task to work on, and Goma- or Stoenescu- or Coja-type traps are all over the place.

I agree with you on the Axis contributions issues, but the obstacle seems to have been surpassed. I haven't really checked to what extent, but I have an allergy in respect to the large and generic articles, because work there seems to be sysiphic (I learned my lesson when I tried to something about the Mussolini article back in the day).

Kudos to that guy for the cabinets info. But it did not solve my problem, I'm afraid. Anyways, they are in the sandbox for us to pick up at any time. About Averescu, Luci, and Take: thanks for the kind words; they're close to launches, I guess, but they still need some stuff done to them. With Luci, I need to revisit VT, since I can use the book entirely, and back up more detail (and we are still lacking the pictures). With Take and Averescu, I would need to visit Ornea, which works in parallel with what I'm doing to the article on Stere. And, damn, I still haven't scanned all the lovely cartoons I keep bumping into (I have some of Averescu, some of Argetoianu, some of Tătărescu, some of Ionescu - all of which are great ways to encompass a moment in history). Which reminds me: hold on to this link - it looks like PD and would work great for a Caragiale article.

Come to think of it: we could even make Caragiale our collaboration. On this issue, I do accept more contributors (unless we get in each other's way, that which would call for some kind of schedule or a sandbox); but I do object to a username you brought up, not just for reasons you may know, but also because I don't want to spend a lifetime rewriting his additions into English and pruning all sorts of absurdities (I'm being harsh, but so was he).

As the headline says, I'm back on track. (I was following your chat with Niko, and I was mock-wondering myself if it was not the Enosis box :); anyway, I left you a picture, you imperialist you). Dahn 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's going down hill, and everything associated with it (including its grammar). I see Băsescu-bashing has had field day after field day, and the other side appears to be mostly incompetent. I would hate to step in, though: I just glanced over who contributed what to the article, and I'm getting nausea. This really encompasses everything that is inept in Romanian contributors' relation to content, and, well, I feel that just getting a word in there now would lead the crowd to slap me with red herrings. Perhaps in the future. And, of course, that article you linked ought to be put on speedydelete. Dahn 05:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could stir the pot a bit: list some main concerns on the talk page (the kind of main concerns that would make it clear the entire article may need rewriting), and then tag it for all its ills. That way, readers will know. Though, I must admit, even starting a conversation on this topic with those people is enough to run a cold chill down my spine.

Amen to the "dead people" rule (well, not really - cause then there are fun articles about many living people). But applying it would risk encouraging people to up and kill him :). Dahn 05:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I fully agree with you about the contrast between wikipedia proclaiming/requesting stability and its inability to provide it. And I fully agree with you about the little flags in infoboxes (well, in persons' infoboxes, that is), though I would not define it as a consequence of the same "too perfect" trend - it is rather the result of people who have or think they have nothing to contribute, and who move beyond common sense just because none of their moves beyond it by "too much" (like alcoholics who always have their "last drink").

Btw, did you notice where the FA debate has been heading? Funny thing, I never cared as much about Sebastiani being promoted - I would be infuriated if reasons as relativist and arbitrary as those are taken into account for failing it. And hell, I actually have to be thankful that one of the objectors actually bothered to indicate something (the other one just links ad nauseam to guidelines I never broke). For crying out loud... Dahn 10:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to thank you for the moving note you left on the Sebastiani issue. I still cannot picture what that dispute is about, but I believe some users are simply trying to save face over some rash, inaccurate and unfair comments they made earlier in the discussion. And, when I ask them to back their claims, I'm being "aggressive". Btw, if I was never sure that my prose was good enough, now I'm certain that you, Turgidson, Ronline, and all the other people who claim to speak English are actually faking it, since, as was pointed out, the article is "riddled with mistakes" - you guys are living a lie :).

The article may not get promoted after all, but that has become by now the least of my problems in relation to those editors. I suspect that, since at least one of them has made willy-nilly accusations, this will stick with other FAs for some time to come. Every time an article I contributed to will be up for FA, all sorts of dubious and self-contradictory claims will be thrown in there, just for the sake of territorialism and hubris. And all that subjective debris about format will become the unwritten law. Oh, well.

On the counties issue: yes, I agree that is a good start (and thanks for seeing eye to eye with me on the larger perspective). It can go places, but i have no specific bibliography at the moment. Btw: we should consider a "prehistory" section for each county, if sources become available - counties did exist even before the 1800s, though attempting to trace their boundaries and history that far back may be utopian; if we mention them in the body of text, provided sources are available, we will get the info across without going into uncharted territory.

In theory, the article about the hotel is notable. But, yes, it is mostly a publicity deal at the moment - though I must commend the editor for some aspects of his text (he looked around and found proper links, and even some redlinks present in other articles - probably from History of Bucharest -, which is an unusually competent approach). Dahn 08:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces

Hi, I remarked that you are interested in Romania and Romania-related articles. I see some huge potential for the Romanian Land Forces article to become a Good article (or, why not, in the future it could be a featured article; see Russian Ground Forces - a former featured page). I'll do my best to expand and improve this article, but I think it's not enough and I may need some help. Are you interested in cooperation? Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 14:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A week just past...If you are still interested to help, I made a to do list on the article's talk page. Also, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best, Eurocopter tigre 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cemetaries

I condemn such vandalism in both Estonia and Transnistria. I am also very much annoyed by politicians of all involved countries who either play the "defend the nation from oppression" card to boost their election chances (it's always good to have an outside enemy at such times) or use the occasion as an excuse to exert political and economic leverage on their neighbor and at the same time don't care to even comment on a similar situation when it does not promise some kind of profit for them. Bah, politics. --Illythr 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was atheist, so I don't think it used Orthodox burial rites, at least officially. As for propaganda, I think that those who had died for a just cause (freeing the world from Nazism is certainly one, IMO) deserve to be remembered for that. While I find the political reasons of both sides disgusting, at least those men will be remembered, unlike many others, who lie forgotten in unmarked graves throughout Europe and Russia. --Illythr 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, one can argue whether the common soldiers should or should not be responsible for the decisions their superiors. Those who had died fighting Nazism, however, most certainly don't. I don't think I understand the part about exploitation. The monument and the soldiers are being exploited right now, but the memorial was originally created to honor the memory of those who had fallen. If some people - much later - have assigned some other property to the memorial, it does not affect its the original purpose, I think. I do not remember anyone claiming that this memorial was erected for any other purpose than honoring the dead, either. While I think I can vaguelly recall a few fanatics calling for its destruction as the nationalist wave had reached its peak, no one had listened to them, fortunately. --Illythr 20:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree on this issue, then.

While I don't remember any Russian imperialism (except for a bunch of... uninformed... people like Makashov who visited Transnistria to add fuel to the fire), I do remember a lot of hatred, suffering and poverty at that particular time. Glorious? Not really. Eminently Romanian? Dunno, it still looks pretty Soviet to me, even after 16 years... --Illythr 21:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rise of nationalism in Europe

Hi Biruitorul. I recently created the above article. You proposed it for deletion. I would like you please to explain why. TerritorialWaters 19:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Rise of nationalism in Europe

Hi again Biruitorul. I accept your opinion about this article. Being an Irish nationalist this topic appealed to me. However, on second thoughts it is very vague! I probably shoulda given a specific time period for the article.Also, I guess writing anything historical is bound to be challenged. Oh well.... TerritorialWaters, 14:43 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Georgescu

Could you source your footnote on Teohari Georgescu. A vandal removed it.

3RR violation on Gheorghe Flondor

I have to block you as well as you did 4 reverts in 24 hours removing {{weasel inline}} Alex Bakharev 11:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Gheorghe Flondor

I have unprotected this article. I highly recommend that if you have problems with the conduct of that user, that you take them to our dispute-resolution processes. Blankly reverting the addition of quality-questioning tags is not (in my opinion) a good way to go about it, even if all they do on Wikipedia is add those tags in a blatantly POV-pushing manner. - Mark 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian Muslim population

The evidence is that it is quite hard to decide who is really a Muslim, so it depends how you count. Is a Muslim only somebody who writes on his census form that he's a Muslim? Is a Muslim somebody who thinks Allah is God? Is a Muslim somebody who follows Muslim traditional customs, or maybe just somebody whose grandparents were Muslim and whose entire family had been Muslim for generations until the Soviet takeover?

The reason I got involved is because I am tired of seeing "Islam in Hungary" be changed from 6,000 to 60,000 and back every few days. Now you added another number. I can assure you it won't stay like that for long. I therefore tried to phrase the different opinions in a way that would satisfy everybody. If you want your data to stay and not to turn into an editing war, I really suggest that you add back the information you deleted and start off with your sentence "according to the official hungarian census", then add "but according to other sources there are 6,000 and even 60,000". This is not a simple question. Misheu 06:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob

Hey, no problem. It was going to take me some time to answer (in fact, I will answer sometime soon, because we do see eye to eye on most things you mentioned, and because your furia francese was entirely justified). I'm sorry about what happened - I can only hope it will not weigh in your quest for adminship (I honestly don't think it should, but I never bothered to check if there was such a thing as a "dos and donts"). Indeed, the Venezuelan page is weird: I have weighed in, but I'm not watchlisting it; I can only assume the paragraph in question is a collateral symptom of our perpetual "hic sunt leones" :).

I honestly don't know that much about icons, and I probably let suspicion get the best of me. On the other hand, I went with the "you can never be too careful", so I'm still "keeping an eye on it" from my end. And I am willing to take into consideration the fact that I may be completely wrong.

Here's to better times. Dahn 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright - we're in business. I have taken the occupation page of my watchlist a long time ago, because both extremes were making me queasy... But I shall revisit if and when it calms down. Dahn 06:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mulţumesc :)

Thanks. It's good to be back, though I am still treading rather carefully so I don't end up losing my head again or getting mired in nasty political disputes or worse, personal battles. I am now *New And Improved*, with renewed commitment to professionalism and good citizenship.

I loved the jokes btw--literally made me laugh out loud, especially the second one. :) K. Lásztocska 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK List

hey, yes, you do make the list - for now (just like all of us, until we find the top twenty five and actually 'compolete' the list). So add your name, your count and your ref. Thanks, —A • D ^Torque 06:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brahms

heh...you beat me to the punch on those categories, thanks. (I always forget to categorize things....) today I quite literally put my violin down, went over to my computer, and began writing an article about the very sonata I'd just been practicing--I'm so postmodern. (I've also left off the article in mid-sonata. I'll finish it tomorrow.) It was neat, because once I had to describe the exact details of the sonata's form and structure, I began noticing things in the music I'd never been entirely conscious of before. There's nothing better for learning something than having to explain it to someone else...

Incidentally, I think I became a constitutional monarchist earlier this evening while watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Long story...

One more thing before I log off. I've just heard from our friend István that apparently he's been having an absolutely miserable month. :( If you can spare a few moments, you might send him a friendly note on his talk page just for a little encouragement and cheering-up, I think he could use it. (Maybe throw in that joke about Ceaucescu and "Gyula", I bet he'd get a kick out of that one.) I don't mean to be canvassing or anything (but the Transylvania Cabal still lives!), but we Wikipedians are all in the trenches together and right now I just think István could use our support. :-( K. Lásztocska 04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Biru, I appreciate it.

As for my monarchism thing--first of all, note I said constitutional monarchy: something along British lines, where there is still a democratic system, parliament and prime minister, and the royals are in a mostly symbolic role. What happened was, Jon Stewart's guest on the show last night was an English journalist who's just written a book about the royal family, and at one point in the discussion this journalist said something to the effect that "the royal family becomes the essence and embodiment of the nation, and keeps that position out of the hands of politicians, who would only seek it for their own benefit." It harmonized so nicely with my thoughts about nationality and my intense dislike of career politicians.....the only problem is I can't bloody well think of who should be Hungary's king/queen, we've spent so much time under foreign rule we don't have any of our own royals left. No, the Habsburgs don't count. ;-)

O'Reilly's not really my style--comes across as too anti-intellectual for one thing, and follows the strict party line too much. I do have a healthy respect for the best aspects of conservatism though, I've been reading reams of Florence King lately and she's as conservative as they come, as well as being hilarious and brilliant. K. Lásztocska 14:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. So we do have a king (or a crown prince, at least), but he's a Habsburg. Right back where we started.....though maybe one could find a lone remaining descendant of Árpád or Csaba out in the Székelyföld somewhere. ;-) I think you'll like Florence King (though I expect you'll disagree strongly with her on some issues, as do I), but at least she's a monarchist too.

I'm logging off till this evening now--I have to go explore that Brahms sonata with violin in hand. Later! K. Lásztocska 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Change it back!

Change it back! I obviously meant he was "a respectable Tatar, and a model to us all". :) Dahn 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On a serious note: the apple of thine eye is missing here, and we are still cramming them here. Should we start something? My main problem is with the "Principalities-to-Romania" scheme, because the Ro Orthodox before the 1860s were actually, dare I say it, Greek Orthodox. With both the Greek Catholics and the Ro Orthodox clerics, I simply traced back from present-day, disregarding past allegiances - will this be workable in general? (Also: damn Despot and [I think] Iancu Sasul - without them, we'd simply be taking the "Princes" cats as a whole and shove them as a subcat in whatever emerges out of the cat I'm submitting to your scrutiny.) Dahn 05:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So, should I change it back to 2007 :)?

Indeed, the problems are intimidating. Here is what I came up with: a "Ro Orth cat", with subsections for "Mold", "Wall", and perhaps others (also categorized under "Greek orthodox"-detailed below). We could them subcategorize the clerics cat as well (they were there mainly to pick them from some place in case we decided to). However, I'm stuck over the following:

• how do we name the cats? We could perhaps use dates "Moldavian Orthodox Christians (x year-y year)" or something, to distinguish between those of today (Romanians born in Moldavia), the other ones of yesteryear (Bessarabian Russian subjects) and those it applies to (not to mention that metropolitan bishoprics are still regional).
• if their relation to Constantinople really made them part of the Greek Church and not just, well, "subjects of Constantinople", what about a potential Transylvanian category? I mean, Şaguna clearly belongs (or "also belongs") in a cat for the Serbian Orthodox. Does this mean we should subcategorize with a special one ("Ethnic Romanian Serbian Orthodox..."), or that we include in both? Additionally, what is the "Transylvanian" category supposed to be named?

Btw, the hierarchy articles involving the BOR are an absolute mess (I cannot understand why Wallachian Metropolitans are listed under "Patriarchs", and this fact adds even more headaches to figuring out what we need to do here). Dahn 07:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You got me wrong: it's not that I want to divide the post-1872 guys as well, but that dividing them into "Moldavia"/"Wallachia" would lead us to another ambiguous place (since there still is a Moldavian Metropolitan Bishopric, and there still is a Wallachian one). So we either come up with another system or somehow avoid simply naming them "Moldavian"/"Wallachian" (but how?). On the other hand, using "ethnic Ro" opens up huge loopholes, such as the one for Phanariote princes. I'm still scratching my head. Dahn 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I likes it. So, do we take a deep breath and plunge? Dahn 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would consider it your privilege to start it (you probably have the clearest image of what you proposed). Btw, I also used a heading note on Category:Romanian Orthodox clerics, so this is not unprecedented. I am at your command here. Dahn 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

advice requested

Hi Biru,

When you get a chance, I'd like your advice on something. There is an editor, whose name I will not mention here, who has been driving me absolutely bonkers since the day I met him. He is persistently rude and uncivil, I have never seen him assume good faith (quite the opposite), he always assumes that anyone who disagrees with him (or posts some fact that he doesn't like) is some sort of fascist troll, frequently uses gratuitously rude edit summaries, has implicitly threatened me and explicitly threatened a friend of mine with a massive edit-war campaign, has declared his intent to stalk a few other users whose opinions he doesn't like and undo all their edits, seems to believe that he and only he knows The Truth about his main area of interest, behaves remarkably arrogantly and disruptively, and basically turns 90% of all the discussions he enters into a vicious flame war. The problem is, he isn't just some random troll. He's astonishingly prolific, and has almost single-handedly written Wikipedia's thorough coverage of his main area of interest.

I've been tempted to start an RfC against him for all the incivility, rudeness and disruptive behavior mentioned above, and yet I hesitate. First of all, I really don't want to get myself mired into the long feuds that can arise whenever conflicts between editors become personal. Secondly, I reallllllly don't want him as my outright enemy and I'm frankly afraid of what retribution he might unleash on me if I do launch an RfC or request for arbitration. Thirdly, I've seen what useless messes RfCs can be (remember The Great Piotrus-Ghirla Affair?) and I worry that it might only exacerbate the problem. On the other hand, when I look at all the policy violations and general unpleasantness that he brings to the project, I don't very well see how he can be ignored (and thus tacitly given a free pass) much longer. I'm really not sure what to do. I know you've had some dealings with nasty antagonists before, so I thought maybe you might have a better idea of how to proceed. K. Lásztocska 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, it's a practically impossible situation. I too noticed on the RfC page that it seems to be mostly about specific incidents, not long-term and habitual disruptiveness and incivility. Wikiquette alerts are totally obscure (I didn't even know they existed until today) and also, seem to be mainly about specific incidents. Mediation or RfAr might be closer, but it would only give him a platform to spew more poison against me, all my friends and compatriots. I thought I'd found a lead with the "long term abuse" section of the admins' noticeboard, but that turned out to be just for obvious blatant vandalism. Where's the noticeboard for "this guy behaves like a complete troll and makes life miserable for everyone he meets", goddammit? The other thing is, I am really torn about whether I should do anything at all or not. When I came back from my wikibreak over the weekend, I resolved to be a model of professionalism, responsibility and good faith (especially as Wikipedia is currently running a deficit of those qualities while our temporarily fallen comrade is absent)--which involves not getting trapped in back-and-forth personal flame wars. (I didn't lose my temper once in the most recent debate on the magyar noticeboard, was pretty proud of that!) On the other hand, I honestly feel that this guy is a hindrance to the project and often hurts more than he helps. For my part, if there's anyone who could make me leave the project for good, it would be him...one of my earliest arguments with him (which admittedly took place at 2 A.M.) literally left me feeling sick to my stomach. The problem is he isn't *obviously* breaking any major rules. When Juro got indef-banned for sockpuppeting a few months ago, Zello pointed out that "hardcore POV pushers always break the rules eventually." But I think that will not happen in this case, this guy is too good of a sophist. He knows exactly how to expertly game the system, staying within the bounds of the biggest rules (or improvising some alibi) while still managing to torture everybody. He's practically bulletproof, I've never even been able to make a dent in him. K. Lásztocska 00:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. even though I'm 99% sure you know exactly who I'm talking about, please make sure you don't mention his name--he watches my contribs (I'm on the blacklist on his userpage) and if he saw this discussion I'd be a complete goner. K. Lásztocska 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is going to be finding just one dispute. He can't seem to play nice with anyone. I've got a big concert coming up in real life in about a week so I don't have the time to expend on an RfC (or picking fights), but once I get back some action might have to finally be taken. K. Lásztocska 15:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) On that, er, note, I'm going to log off and go practice. On an unrelated topic, what do you make of this whole Vince/sockpuppets/impersonators of sockpuppets mess? I made the mistake of getting involved in it yesterday, and it really is an impossible situation. K. Lásztocska 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Traian Băsescu

Hi, if you are or will be on WP these days, may I ask you to please watch Traian Băsescu, giben that it is tagged a current event. I and Dl.goe have copyedited recently some sections of the article, then an old acquentence has rv it. If you feel like copy editting it, please be my guest. I will not mind if someone edits, even massively, incl what you might guess i would disagree, as long as it is honest copyedit, not blant rv without even reading. If you have time and interest...:Dc76 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Take your time.:Dc76 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Something funny [13] and [14].:Dc76 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How long do you think it is civilized not to revert myself? I'm inclined to go to bed now, so tonight i am busy. :-) :Dc76 23:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I still have to read the new version, but I see how many reds. Thank you very-very much for your time! :Dc76 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Burnham Park GA

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Chicago Tonight is the current Chicago COTW You were a contributing editor to Burnham Park during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we turned a redlink into this. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Contributing editors:ChicagoPimp, SmackBot, Speciate, TonyTheTiger, Twintone, VirtualSteve, (Biruitorul, Camptown, Leftger).
	Good Article

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Întrebare

Salut, am şi eu o întrebare şi poate mă poţi ajuta. Este adevărat că limba maghiară este limbă oficială în România cum mai nou spun unii pe aici? Dacă nu, cum/unde pot afla adevărul? (îţi scriu în română pt că îmi este mai uşor să scriu - bănuiesc că nu e nici o problemă).--Roamataa 12:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Atunci toate poveştile cu mutarea articolelor unor localităţi la numele maghiare tot ce pot să înţeleg este că e doar un pct personal de vedere al unora, care prin presiuni repetate şi concentrate încearcă să îl impună. Interesant este faptul că la localităţile slovace (Komárno, Dunajská Streda) nu se pune problema dublării numelor, cu atât mai puţin a redenumirii articolelor şi nici nu sunt eterne discuţii, scandaluri şi presiuni pe tema asta. Probabil noi românii suntem prea delăsători. Sau fraieri? --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  16:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Dacă este Ok aş prefera să nu ne formalizăm şi să ne adresăm reciproc per tu. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  16:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here I am

Hi. I haven't had time to look into your earlier queries (just glanced over the death squads article, and kudos!). I'll be back with answers soon, though. I see you're copyediting Anton Pann, and I thought I could pick your brain about this: having never used the expression "ba e tunsă, ba e rasă", I had to guess its meaning, and I can only hope I got it right - can you perchance confirm or refute my guess? Dahn 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, btw: what is the Hristoitia? I vaguely know what it refers to, but should it be a link? If so, presumably, it should be (red)linked with a name that is closer to the Romanization of Greek - but variants I've tried in google searches led nowhere. Thoughts? Dahn 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is definitely better. About the meaning, I wrote: "a tongue-in-cheek view of arbitrary conclusions". Is this, to your knowledge, accurate? In the original story, an old man decides to drown his wife after she disagrees with his view that the orchard is razed, and claims that it is "trimmed"/"pruned"; as she is plunged into the water and is unable to speak, she lifts her arm out of the water and gestures a scissor with her fingers. What is Pann's point, after all? Is he sympathetic to the wife, to the old man, or is he lamenting stupid quarrels in general? Not knowing what the expression stands for, I kinda went the latter variant (thinking that it could also cover the other two up to a certain point).

I did get that link myself, but I was intrigued that nothing referring to a Greek original/source of inspiration seemed to pop up. The sources I used mention it as if it needs no explanation, but then there's silence... Oh, well. Dahn 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking more of Nicodim using, so to say, a "template", or a precedent, but maybe I was fooled by the fact that the author was not cited in other contexts (which led me to believe that it corresponded to some earlier tradition). Dahn 16:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tampa2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tampa2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I don't know who you are but God bless you for your recent clean up on some of the Orthodoxy articles on wiki. They really needed it and I have not been the best editor in giving them the time and attention they needed. God Bless, LoveMonkey 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you. I hate to be a beggar but my God is unproud. Uh I created this article Monastery of Humor and I have no real pictures to do this most beloved and Holy place justice. Do you have a picture to show the world the awesomeness of this place? I am often struck with awe at the cosmos painting, that is at this most precious place. It is almost unspeakable in it's Holiness. Also I have a little buddy who is now a huge fan of Moldavia as it is mentioned in the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church article I was trying to help him write. Could you just review the article and possible make it alittle more informative on the most awesome and beautiful Roman:ian and Moldivian Orthodox communities. I do feel that that I did those section justice and my little buddy has frustrated me abit. LoveMonkey 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Most esquisite! The Holy Spirit has descented! LoveMonkey 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

diacriticals

Gaaaaahhh. You may officially give me a harsh slap on the wrist for this unforgivable oversight...thanks for fixing it though. K. Lásztocska 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

drama on the high seas

I love the way your twisted mind works. :-) Allow me to present Chapter Two:

"The good ship Polonia had taken heavy fire. Certain doom appeared only a few steps away. The Kornilov was just near enough for Commandant Irpen's vengeful visage to be seen through the smoke, his features hardened by many battles and a long wait for revenge. The salty sea air stung Captain Piotrus's eyes as he stood alone on deck, looking perhaps for the last time at the face of his mortal enemy. He looked helplessly at the empty, wine-dark sea around him--would no one come to his aid? His comrades were all either long gone or had been sent into exile by the rogue Soviet soldiers who now circled the battered Polonia slowly, vigilantly, like a shark waiting for the perfect moment to deliver the death blow. The thunder of cannon fire was heard in the distance--the senseless war was still raging all across the blood-stained Black Sea. "Jeszcze Polska nie zginiela", whispered Piotrus to himself, his voice trembling with emotion. "If I am to die here today, at least I shall die as a Pole, with my head held high!"

Aboard the good ship Hungaria, the banner of King Mátyás fluttering in the breeze, Lieutenant Lásztocska peered through her spyglass at the Serbian fleet gathering in the distance. To attack or not to attack? That was the question. For a long time now the Serbs had been teetering on the brink of open revolt against both the Hungarians and the Romanians, their fanatical, enigmatic fleet admiral's mercurial orders and campaigns keeping everyone tense and worried about the possibility of war. Already the Hungarians' peace with the Romanians was looking fragile thanks to the Machiavellian machinations of the Serbs, but what to do? An attack would surely light the fuse, war would be inevitable...Lásztocska threw down her spyglass in despair. Why, why, why had Captain István been snatched away by the malicious Fates? He had been missing in action ever since the Battle of Fantana Alba, with only the occasional brief telegram proving that he still lived. And since Commander Alensha had declared herself a conscientous objector and run off to Ancient Egypt, Lásztocska found herself, still only a lieutenant, in command of the Hungaria. The Serbian question tormented her day and night. They had to be stopped before they set the whole continent aflame, but how to stop the clever Serbs without setting the fire herself?

Meanwhile, aboard the Dacia, Captain Biruitorul was urging the ship madly forward to Cetatea Albă. Commander Dahn desperately tried to reason with him: "We are needed across the sea! The Poles are all but finished, the Serbs have everyone worried, and the Soviets are poised to take control of the entire region! Surely we have better things to do than take back one citadel!" But Biruitorul would not be swayed. "One citadel today, Moldova tomorrow!" he proclaimed. "I shall not rest until Romania regains the lands that are rightfully hers by the will of God!" "But Captain, the naming conventions in Transylvania..." "Not another word! We will retake Cetatea Albă today, or I will never again be worthy to call myself by the glorious name of Romanian!" cried Biruitorul, weeping with patriotic fervor. "Arrrrrrrrrrgh!" growled Anonimu from his cage.

Just then, a red-white-and-green flare went up from across the sea. The Hungaria was in trouble! And with the Poles all but done for, the Czechs too preoccupied with playing their music, and the Bulgarians too confused as to what was going on in the first place, who but the crew of the Dacia could possibly come to the Magyars' aid?......"

I leave Chapter Three in your hands, Captain...K. Lásztocska 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting good--but you let me get tied to the mast by fascists instead of coming valiantly to my rescue?! ;-) Chapter Four will be forthcoming sooner or later, complete with high melodrama, tragedy and comedy, and hopefully a plot twist or two. (though probably later rather than sooner, as my concert is today...) K. Lásztocska 15:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be a rule against having this much pointless fun. ;-) The plot thickens:

"Shackled to the ghastly green Arrow Cross, Árpád's banner flapped wildly in the wind as if it were trying to break free. So too did Admiral [??] Lásztocska struggle against the ropes with which the fascist pirates had tied her to the mast of the good ship Hungaria. The dead skull of János Kádár grinned cruelly at her, stuck on a pike and planted disgustingly close by. The pirates crowded around her, smelling of blood and pálinka, laughing boorishly in her face as they ripped the Hungarian tricolor from the flagpole [or whatever they have on ships] and set it aflame. "This is what will happen to everyone who stands in our way!" cackled the pirate leader. "All of Slovakia, Transylvania, Banat and Bačka, the Burgenland and whatever else we feel like conquering will fall before our mighty cannons, and burn just as surely as this ugly flag! Of course, it goes without saying that we'll burn Budapest too, that hot-bed of filthy Zionist conspirators, and then we'll go celebrate by kicking some gypsies!" He laughed wickedly. "What do you say to that, eh?" Lásztocska spat in his face, and a roar went up among the fascists. "Oho! So you're a fighter, are you?" sneered the pirate leader. "You pigs will never win," hissed Lásztocska. "You are traitors to St. Stephen, to King Mátyás, to Széchenyi, to all of Hungarian history and all the Hungarian people! You do not speak for Hungary, you speak only for your own twisted selves!"

The dark curtain of night eventually fell across the Black Sea, and the guns fell silent, awaiting the sunrise that would surely be red as spilled blood. The Polonia drifted along barely staying afloat, while aboard the Kornilov, the gunners had abandoned their posts and gone down below deck to drink away their troubles. Piotrus heaved a long, mournful, very Polish sigh. He had managed to cheat death for one more day--but how long could his luck hold out?

His quarters illuminated by nothing more than the moonlight, the self-satisfied Serbian fleet admiral stroked his sinister-looking mustache and smiled an evil smile to himself. Soon. Very soon. Everything was going according to plan. It was only a matter of time now. From across the waves he could hear the Czechs--they had gotten serious, rather than playing more Strauss waltzes, they were halfway through Dvořák's Eight Symphony.

The fascist pirates had gone down below deck to get drunk and plot ways to retake Slovakia, leaving Lásztocska alone, still tied to the mast and getting very uncomfortable. Not having any appearances to keep up for the sake of pride, she succumbed to misery. "Oh, St. Elizabeth of Sarospatak, patron of exiles! Csaba, defender of the lonely Székely! Will you not help me?" she cried out to the cold night air. "The Hungaria is done for, and Hungary is next! Jaj, aj, our tragic existence...once again Hungary is set for certain doom, we are wilting away and dying, withering like spring flowers clutched in the talons of the imperial eagle!" (She suddenly realized she was singing a gloomy folk song.) "Oh great and merciful patron of my homeland, help me! Saint Stephen, Szent István-király!...István!" and a fresh wave of misery assailed her as she spoke the name not only of Hungary's patron saint, but also of her long-lost friend. Bitterly, she reflected on the last thing she had seen before the pirates had tied her up: the Dacia, speeding toward Constantinople, too preoccupied with their captain's nationalism to come to the aid of the desperate Hungarians and Poles.

But meanwhile, aboard the Dacia, trouble was brewing. Dahn had had enough of being lectured to by an Iron Guard sympathiser, and Bonaparte was just getting annoying. One word suddenly popped into Dahn's mind: mutiny. But no, no, never....it was impossible. To betray good Captain Biruitorul was unthinkable! But so too was leaving the Poles and Hungarians to be destroyed by the Soviets and Serbs..."Arrrrrrgh!" was Anonimu's only comment on the subject."

Hey, you tie me to the mast by fascist pirates, I start plotting a mutiny on your ship. Fair's fair. ;-) K. Lásztocska 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Biru, you're leavin' me hanging here!...can I expect a Chapter Five anytime soon? :-) I know we've all got much more important things to do than spinning silly stories about Wikipedians on the high seas, but it's just so much fun...Piotrus and KIDB have apparently been enjoying it as well, see their comments on my talk page...K. Lásztocska 00:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you've figured out my strategy--get an idea, throw caution to the wind, and write whatever comes into my head. It's more fun than digging around a pile of musty books for page numbers of citations for my musician biographies, anyway (which I was going to do today but real life intervened.) Anyway, I actually tried thinking about this chapter before gonzoing it down. I loved imagining your drunken crew singing their spirited but terribly off-key rendition of the Orthodox liturgy, by the way.

"As dawn rose on the second day of Admiral Lastochka's captivity, she was quickly sinking into oblivion. She had refused to eat or drink anything the fascists tried to present her with (she half-suspected that they drank the blood of Gypsy children) and as a result was growing weaker by the minute. Dimly, she felt madness approaching, and was vaguely aware that she had been singing gloomy Hungarian folk ballads all night. Through her delirium, she thought she saw a familiar ship on the horizon. Could it be...she desperately hoped with every fiber of her fast-ebbing strength...could it indeed be Captain István aboard his good ship SS Ötvenhat, come to rescue her one last time from the jaws of doom? But before she could see clearly, she fainted from exhaustion...

...A splash of cold sea water awakened her, and now she could clearly see the good ship that was approaching the Hungaria. It was not the Ötvenhat, that was for sure, and the sailor standing at the helm was certainly not the witty gentleman of science and letters she had been hoping for; no, this was a bold warrior, a proud son of Trajan. He was tall and strong, his shirt torn and, she noted with some alarm, streaks of dried blood still visible on his hands. But her trepidation vanished as the mysterious Romanian brought his ship near enough to leap onto the deck of the Hungaria, boldly raised his sword and slashed through Lastochka's bonds with one swashbuckling blow. The last thing she was aware of before passing out again was the Romanian taking her in his arms and crossing back over to the safety of his ship...

...She awoke a few hours later, in a bunk below deck. The Romanian was standing nearby, and smiled as he saw her open her eyes. "Welcome to the SS Dacia, Admiral," he said, holding out his hand. "I am Commander Dahn. Here, you'll want some of this," and he handed her a dusty bottle of a golden elixir. "Tokaji?!" said an incredulous Lastochka. "I thought this was a Romanian ship." "It is," said Dahn. "That fine specimen got stuck on the wrong side of things when the borders moved back in 1920--we've been carrying it around not knowing what to do with it ever since." Lastochka groaned. "Oh well, bottoms up," she said, and took a swig. Immediately she felt her strength return. "Well, come on then, let's take you on the grand tour of our mighty vessel," said Dahn, and led her up to the deck.

When they arrived up top, Lastochka was startled to see another Romanian, but one she recognized, peacefully asleep on the deck, with a serene smile on his face like a cat curled up contentedly in the sun. "Biru?!" she gasped incredulously, recognizing her old combat buddy from the Battle of Fantana Alba. "Dahn, what the heck happened to him?" "Oh, he went a little nuts and started trying to retake Constantinople," explained Dahn. "I had to tranquilize him. He'll be a little loopy when he comes to, but he'll be fine." Lastochka shook her head, chuckling ruefully. Some things never change.

That evening, a terrible storm broke out. The wind was howling, the rain was thrashing, thunder booming and lighting flashing. The Hungaria listed dangerously to the side--the fascist pirates were apparently all too drunk to remember to have anyone mind the helm. "I've got to save the Hungaria!" cried Lastochka above the gale. "Lay down the plank between the ships!" Dahn obliged, and Lastochka scrambled over to her ship and took the helm. "Stay close!" instructed Dahn. "These are dangerous waters, we don't want to get separated!"

The wind howled fiercer and fiercer. Suddenly a terrible gust ripped the fascists' flag clean in half--the red and white stripes of Árpád's ancient banner at last broke away and were carried to freedom by the wind. Immediately, a bolt of lightning struck the remaining half, burned down the flagpole [or whatever!] and set the Hungaria herself aflame. Terrified, Lastochka tried to keep the good ship on course, and tried not to hear the bloodcurdling screams of the pirates below deck--alcohol and fire were not a good mix, she reflected. All she could hope was that the rain would douse the flames.

Suddenly, a jagged spire of rock appeared out of nowhere. "Land ho!" came Dahn's voice on a gust of wind. The waves roared higher, the wind blew harder--

--and both ships' captains finally lost control, and the proud ships Dacia and Hungaria were dashed to pieces on the rocks. Dahn, Lastochka, Biruitorul, Anonimu and assorted crewmen all survived, but the sun rose the next morning on the bleakest scene yet. What hope could possibly lie ahead for the Hungarians and Romanians?

Across the sea, the storm-battered Czechs cowered in fear below deck, nervously playing Strauss' Thunder and Lighting Polka. K. Lásztocska 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa--you roasted the Russians! We may eventually get in some sort of trouble for all this, you know. I'm at a loss what to do with the shipwrecked Hungarians and Dacians, but I'll work on it... ;-) K. Lásztocska 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was fun to read when it was close to reality, but now you guys are going into complete fiction :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I should scroll up more often! Dahn 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry, Piotrus--the tale does seem to have taken on a life of its own, and there seems to be no end in sight. (at least I hope not, it's so much fun...) Yeah, Dahn, you rescued me. Thanks for that.... ;-) K. Lásztocska 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Any time ;). Thanks for making me the hero of an epic - though that was bound to happen sooner or later :). Dahn 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ehh, we'll all end up heroes eventually. :) This is a great way to get my Wiki fix when I don't have the time (or the brainpower) to make actual useful edits...

"The sun rose the next morning on a terrible scene. Two once-mighty ships who once proudly flew their nations' flags were now dashed to pieces on jagged rocks. Three of this epic's heroes--valiant Commander Dahn, righteous Captain Biruitorul, and intrepid Admiral Lastochka, who by all rights could have been standing before kings and dignitaries to recieve their medals of valor, were instead standing gloomily on a desolate island beach, bruised and sore, devastated by the loss of their ships, and feeling that all was lost. Biruitorul was still a bit groggy from the tranquilizer dart Dahn had fired at him, and his speech was occasionally interrupted by mumbled half-conscious silly limericks in Church Slavonic. [it was all I could think of to top your crew's inebriated Beatitudes.]Lastochka was still being herself, wailing at the top of her lungs for King Matyas, Prince Csaba and St. Stephen to intervene to save the day, and Dahn was basking in his newfound glory as hero of an epic. Anonimu, on the other hand....wait...where was Anonimu?

A thrill of terror went through each of our heroes as they all noticed at once that the door to Anonimu's cage had been broken open in the crash, and the cage was empty.

A high-pitched whistle suddenly split the air as a savage arrow whizzed not two inches from Biruitorul's face. "Fascist!" came a cruel hiss from somewhere in the woods. Another hiss, "Philoguardist!" accompanied another arrow, this one passing by even closer. All three heroes were quite frightened now, but still lucid enough to wonder what on earth these strange words meant--perhaps they were in the local dialect of this island. "What do you make of this, Commander?" Lastochka asked Dahn worriedly. "Dunno," he shook his head. "Native savages, I guess...but how on earth would a bunch of island tribesmen ever get so political?" Suddenly a fierce shout came from the woods: "Holodeni!!". A terrible arrow flew out and struck Biruitorul--he gasped in pain and crumbled to the ground. Lastochka screamed and ran to his side. Our Heroes looked dramatically into the woods to witness the appearance of...Anonimu, his face smeared menacingly with red warpaint, a string of animal claws around his neck, wearing savage tribal regalia with his newly-woven communist banner as a cape. A small army of natives stood behind him, spears at the ready. "This island has been liberated," snarled Anonimu, "and I have been elected General Secretary. You three fascists are enemies of the people and must be dealt with accordingly." His cruel gaze lingered briefly on each of their defiant faces. "Dahn, I'll let you off easy--you could be a decent comrade eventually, after a little re-education. And Lastochka--well, she's just a stupid starstruck groupie, following Biru around like a trained dog, but harmless on her own." He snarled menacingly and looked mockingly into Biruitorul's eyes. "It's you I want. You're the one polluting everything with your fascist Iron Guard propaganda, you're the prime enemy of the people's dictatorship of the proletariat. You put me in a cage! Me, a pure and uncorrupted freedom fighter, battling for the liberty of all the working classes! Now, fascist pig, you will get what you deserve." "I deserve no less than the justice all are afforded in the eyes of God!" Biruitorul protested, but to no avail. On Anonimu's signal, the savages attacked, with whips and clubs and surplus Swiss Army knives (washed up from a previous shipwreck.) Lastochka and Dahn could only watch, despairing, as the savages beat Biruitorul into weak and helpless submission. His eyes still burned with defiance and pride, but he could not raise a hand to halt the attack without ensuring his immediate death. Finally, the savages dragged Biruitorul's limp body into the woods and vanished.

For the third time in this epic, Lastochka broke down in despairing sobs. First Istvan had been snatched away by cruel fate, then Biruitorul had been--apparently--murdered before her very eyes. Surely she was next. She was finished, Hungary was finished, all was lost. Dahn too, although he did a better job of hiding his agony, was similarly devastated. His old friend, his comrade-in-arms, his wingman on the high seas. Miserably, the two remaining heroes racked their brains to try to remember the proper prayers for an Orthodox funeral.

But that night, Anonimu showed up again, looking very annoyed. "I'm afraid I must inform you that my savages are a bunch of total hacks," he grumbled, "and your fascist captain is still alive." Joy flooded into Dahn's heart, and Lastochka started dancing a gleeful csardas. "He's getting on my nerves like nothing else," the communist chieftain went on. "Perhaps we could...negotiate a settlement?"......

Across the sea, the Czechs played Beethoven's Fifth in anticipation of the approaching world-shaking battle.

Whew! Most ridiculous chapter yet. ;-) K. Lásztocska 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Salut

Salut! Am si eu o intrebare: La articolul Budapest, am scos nickname-ul "Paris of the East" pentru ca, din cate stiu eu, asa este numit Bucurestiul. Cineva insa reintrodus nick-ul asta, dandu-mi si o sursa: http://www.globosapiens.net/travel-information/Budapest-197.html . Totusi, din cate stiu eu, asa e numit Bucurestiul. Tu ce stii? Sper ca nu te superi ca am scris in romana. --Mocu 19:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I started a discussion at Talk:Cătina, Cluj. Your opinion is welcome. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  08:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Syrian Americans

Thanks, I've reworded that part. Great advice as usual. —Anas ^talk? 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

About the deletion of the Eliberatica page

Hello,

We, ROSI (the Romanian Open Source Initiative) would like to put up a page about eLiberatica on wikipedia. We actually did this until you filed it for speedy deletion.

The eLiberatica Conference brings community leaders from around the world to talk about the hottest topics in FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) movement demonstrating the advantages of adopting, using and developing Open Source and Free Software solutions. See eliberatica.ro for more information.

We request your help on how we can create a worthy page. So, if you have any suggestions or if there is a conference page on wikipedia that would serve as inspiration, please point us to it.

Thanks, Mihai

MADOSZ et al.

Hi. For some reason, I failed to register the last part of your message, and took my time replying. I hope I didn't seem rude, but I obsessively dedicated myself to filling an almost-gap. I guess replying on the DYK issue is largely futile (though I see a bot has fished out one of your last articles). In any case, the articles are grat, though I wish they had more specific referencing (that would also allow us to expand them with more sources, such as, say, Totok).

On the Jewish Union, I really don't know, but, if it were after me, I would have to say it was party (so is the UDMR, after all). I say we add it to the template and list; I'll help pin it in the related articles, right after I'm done with some other stuff. Btw, I recently scanned a lot of random stuff, so expect colorful surprises in some articles.

Personally, I favor "Ion Vincze", since I'm pretty sure that was the way he chose to Romanianize his name in the interwar (as opposed to "Vinţe", which, afaict, is 1950s overkill). I allowed myself to refer to him as such, even in earlier contexts, for two reasons that, although I consider them convenient, may or may not turn out to be correct assumptions: for one, we have the Foriş/Luca precedents in respect to voluntary Romanianization of names (it would be rather pretentious to switch to "Luka" and "Foris" when speaking about their youth); secondly, I think it is sometimes best for the reader to be consistent, even if perhaps slightly inaccurate (when referring to Heliade Rădulescu in the 1848 article, I used this full form, even though there is indication that he added "Rădulescu" to his surname at a later date). Sounds reasonable?

Boogie down. Dahn 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Invitatie

Salut! Am observat ca aţi fost activ(ă) la articole despre Moldova (indiferent de ce mal al Prutului este vorba), sau despre regiunea Cernăuţi, sau despre Bugeac, sau despre Transnistria istorică. Dacă nu sunteţi indiferent şi vă interesează să contribuiţi la articole despre sau cu relevanţă pentru Republica Moldova, vă rog adăugaţi-vă numele la Noticeboard of the wikipedians from or interested in Moldova. Am vrea:

• să facem o inventariere a articolelor legate de Moldova, în special
  • să le punem în categoriile corecte
  • să identificăm sute de articole WP existente cu relevanţă despre Moldova şi la cele care nu au, să le adăugăm [[Category:Moldova]].
• în paralel am vrea să facem acelaşi lucru cu cele legate de regiunea Cernăuţi, Bugeac şi Transnistria
• să menţinem portalul Portal:Moldova, în special
  • să identificăm câteva articole bune, care ar putea deveni "featured"
  • să completăm "Did you know" la cel puţin 200 de intrări
  • să adăugăm Wikinews despre Moldova
• orice altceva ce vă interesează şi are legatură cu Moldova

Daca puteti contribui in medie o data pe saptamana cu o editare despre Moldova, ar fi excelent! Vă mulţumesc frumos si sper sa raspundeti. :Dc76 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[[15]]

He was set free. http://www.antena3.ro/Un-membru-al-grupului-Ilascu--eliberat-dupa-15-ani_jst_33499_ext.html --134.76.126.172 08:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Liberal Colegial Group

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Liberal Colegial Group, by Mschel, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Liberal Colegial Group is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Liberal Colegial Group, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Liberal Colegial Group itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Antonescu

Stop defending Antonescu and stop trying to add heroism to some of his actions. The guy was an idiot and that's that. I don't care if he had some good intentions for the country. He made some wrong choices which were not only political incorrect, but also morally incorrect. They cannot be defended. As for TA, he's playing with you. In another forum, he played a similar role as the one you are playing now, where he tried to convince me that Antonescu did some good deeds. And please stop being such a Christian fanatic. "God is dead." Thanks. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the things that he deserves credit for? He was a lousy politician and a lousy tactician. What was his talent? He possessed none. Are you Anti-semitic? --Thus Spake Anittas 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be balanced, but make sure that his crimes are not justified due to his intentions. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jvedule, poate'ti cer daune pentru calomnie.Anonimu 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Moldovenii nu mai platesc tribut la tatari de cand haul si dudaul. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nu'i tribut... doar un peşcheş acoloAnonimu 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never said that Transylvanians are not true Romanians. They are. I've always said that Moldavians and Transylvanians are true Romanians. :) Where are you from? --Thus Spake Anittas 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zykina.jpg

A very interesting issue here. There are some who would argue that any fair use photo of a person is replaceable as long as that person is living. Your position seems to be that if the photo shows a person in a prior phase of life, it cannot be replaced. This could arguably apply to any photo that depicts a person and is 15-20 years old or older. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just trying to work through the issue and tease out some practical guidelines, as I am relatively new at this. Can you point me to any WP policy one way or the other? Thanks much. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the key is the word "potentially" in the guideline. You are saying if the photo is not actually replaceable by another photo that conveys the same concept, we can use it. And that makes sense, but it leaves a lot to interpretation and therefore disagreement. Silly me, looking for a consistent, easy answer . . . Thanks for your insight! --Butseriouslyfolks 07:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold the presses

Your guidance has yet again blossomed: the Project is going to be Kogălniceanu, if you agree to it. It came about by accident in a chat I had with Turgidson, and the idea is that he is going to sandbox is for us to work on. Which is nice, because I have a comprehensive article on all his family to cite from. There is the matter of how to avoid edit conflicts; my proposal is that we use the text already present as a template on which to add from other sources. We then map out a plan on how the article should be structured to trace the main events and avoid repetition, while figuring out what future or present articles link to the page and where (kinda like what we planned with the labor movement); for example, we could have a Main article: Dacia Literară, a Main article: Cuvânt pentru deschiderea cursului de istorie naţională, a Main article: Secularization of monastery estates in Romania (or just links to all of these in the text, depending on what sources dictate to us). We then each indicate our sources - we divide those we all have access to among us, and then we each introduce from his side to the text already in there. More or less the same thing for sources only one of us have access to. The best way to do this is, basically, to add everything relevant from each source, one source at a time (we could each start editing in one go, and mark an edit summary as "done" when we have finished). Sounds like a plan?

Oh, and since it is basically Turgidson's turf, we let him decide on Oxford vs. American English, referencing system etc. Dahn 14:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I guess a more pertinent question is do you feel that you have been personally attacked by the "ultra-nationalist holodeni" edit summary?--Isotope23 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Would I feel attacked? Probably not; but I have skin thicker than a Sherman Tank and am nearly devoid of human emotion. I had to ask though because you didn't put in the WP:ANI report so to me it wasn't clear to me if you felt you were being personally attacked or if you were just shrugging it off and someone else was viewing it harder than you were (I'm usually less tolerant of things directed at other people than I am of things directed at me personally). Thanks for the answer... Give me some time to review the edits.--Isotope23 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Szigeti's infobox

Groan. You're completely right about the flag--though please note that I was not the one who added the infobox, I hate infoboxes. I'll change the flag but I will not, unless you think it is absolutely necessary, follow the lead of a certain irritating hungarophobe and write "Budapest, Kingdom of Hungary". I will just make "Hungary" link to "Kingdom of Hungary." Nobody really bothered with the full name back then anyway. K. Lásztocska 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be hilarious if we had to go through an RfC for our little Horatio Hornblower saga...I can see it now. Anonimu: "Biruitorul violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:DICK by putting my character in a cage!" Panonian: "Well, Lastochka insults me and all Serbian people by make Serbian fleet admiral an evildoer, WHY? This is just more irredentist Hungarian propaganda fabrication about "evil serbs," she is clearly Greater Hungarian nationalist and wants to take territorial claim to Vojvodina." Me: "Why did you head for Constantinople instead of rescuing me, again?" You: "Well, why did you dash both our ships to pieces on a rock?" I'm working on that one btw...now that the Russians have been dealt with, some new danger is approaching. (hint: someone's out of his cage.) K. Lásztocska 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1994_reform_of_the_Argentine_Constitution

I changed this article as suggested in the talk page; to sort it; and to break the article into sections. If you revert it, please don't revert the stub sort (international-law-stub). Bearian 21:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ion Heliade Rădulescu

Though I should have learned my lesson with Horace, I think I'll have a go at FAC with thisun. I'm thinking of going through peer-review first, but I would appreciate it if you would copyedit it first, just in case you have the time and the patience. Dahn 22:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! And yes, you are right. I couldn't find any mentions of Saint Sava being actually shut down, but it seems that its closure was somehow related to the Vladimirescu episode (it was probably not reopened when the Ottomans came back, and it seems that Lazăr was already ill by then). Dahn 11:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Tristan Heathcock

I've nominated this article for deletion. You may like to join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Tristan Heathcock. Grover cleveland 07:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

no can do

per wp:npa and WP:HAR.Anonimu 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1. what have "holodeni" and "philoguardist" to do with npa? 2. where did i call you "philoguardist"? Anonimu 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1. i've never said "holodeni" means what you claim. It depends what you understand by "philoguardist" (i wouldn't be surprised if you'd find another strange acronym). 2. As i've already said, wiki rules prevent me from doing that.( btw, it's interesting to see you feel a "philoguardist")Anonimu 18:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1. what sophistry? 2. you seem a bit paranoid. npa also applies to off-wiki actions. Anonimu 06:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. not if those "personal attacks" are only in your mind. 2 "paranoid" it's not a personal attack, it's just a personal opinion (you keep claiming i've attacked you, the only proof being that "you know it"). Anonimu 06:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm getting bored with you threats. try finding something new.Anonimu 07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Diff

Can you please explain this [16] edit? I'm curious why you replaced the flag with a 48 star flag? Thanks. - Philippe | Talk 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the flag, per WP:Flag, which says "The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is strongly deprecated, as flags imply nationality." - Philippe | Talk 03:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Powell infobox

you wrote:
Greetings. Could you please point out where the "standard" infobox format is listed? Thank you. Biruitorul 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

...usage guidelines are at template:infobox actor. --emerson7 | Talk 16:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Capra

Copyedit from my "talk page:" I'm making a temporary strategic retreat from this battle, but as a parting shot, may I please ask you to check this link? "Div." is quite clearly a possible meaning for "divorced", and in that context, I bet no reader would be left in doubt as to its meaning. Biruitorul 06:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I really wasn't trying to be a pain but I did look up any possible variation on the abbreviation "div." in every dictionary I could find. None and I mean NONE of the dictionaries listed "Divorced" as a possible meaning, that is why I indicated in my edit summary that "div." was a colloquial abbreviation that was not standard. The instances where people make up words is quite common but should probably not appear in a dictionary or encyclopedia. FWIW Bzuk 12:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Morea Expedition

Thank you for this wonderful translation, and for asking for my thoughts about it. You did a great job. It's stange to see one of my "babies" live its life on its own. Thanks. Cedric B. 13:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Have you tried a WP:RFC on that editor? Much of what I'm seeing is very incivil & unhelpful, but short of what I would block for.--Isotope23 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Biru. Just wanted to let you know that you have my full support if you ever decide to pursue that avenue of dispute resolution--since an RfC requires two initiators, I would be willing to co-sponsor this referendum (as it were.) K. Lásztocska 01:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)