User talk:Biruitorul/Archive4

Hungarian-Romanian war

Referintele se gasesc la sectiunea referinte. Articolul se orienteaza in principal dupa cartea lui Kiritescu. In cel mai bun caz as putea sa aduag bibliografia de acolo. Octavian8 (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Salut, spune-mi si mie te rog cu cine trebuie sa vorbesc ca sa protejez articolul, astfel incat eventualele editari sa fie mai intai discutate in pagin de discutii si abia apoi trecute in articol.Octavian8 (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Treceţi batalioane române, Carpaţii speedy

Hi. You recently tagged Treceţi batalioane române, Carpaţii for speedy deletion under CSD A7. However, A7 only applies to people, organizations, and web content. The article in question is a song, so I have removed the tag. Please keep this in mind in the future. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Petkov

Greetings! The early postwar period is not among my favourite (I don't like the abolishment of monarchy and think that we should have kept at least Western Thrace in the treaty of Paris ;-) but I will expand the article for Petkov from the BG Wikipedia these days (most of my history books are not at home...) Best, --Gligan (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also grateful for your contributions to the article of Nikola Petkov. Your only slight mistake is that Dr G. M. Dimitrov (known also as Geme Dimitrov) was a democrat although ironically both his first and family names coincide with the name of the communist leader;-) Perhaps I should make a small article for him as well. And of course I disagree for Southern Dobrudzha - it was a purely and solely Bulgarian territory and its occupation by Romania is considered a mistake even by most Romanians I know:-) I think that Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia were also doomed - at least because of the presence of Soviet troops... Regards, --Gligan (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is indeed an interesting matter to discuss. I think that that the Americans did not want to create tensions with the Soviets or had some sort of agreement for Prague. Austria was not so important for USSR to separate its occupation zone as it did with Germany - it would have been only unnecessary trouble and tension in my opinion to divide the country or to impose a communist government.

As far as support is concerned I think you are right - many people in the late 40s and early 50s really believed in the ideals of communism; they were convinced that they were working for the prosperity of the nation and equality of all people (for instance my grand-father's brother always describes to me the building of the Batak Hydro Cascade in the 50s with great enthusiasm) and when they realized what the reality was - it was too late... --Gligan (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion, but I think I can add to the conversation. As far as I remember Bulgaria wasn't that doomed. It was on the verge, I think, on the famous box of matches. The percentage was something like 60-40 to Stalin, but I might be wrong. We could've escaped alongside Greece, but I guess the Soviets had a too tight grip here. I've studied some Romanian history in my first semester, but I forgot - were or were not the communists supported in Romania? I think that they weren't and that Russians were generally not too popular in the country, so this would've been a great chance if you weren't surrounded by us commies :)) --Laveol ^T 20:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK triple

On 13 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Hungarian parliamentary election, 1945, Hungarian parliamentary election, 1947, and Hungarian parliamentary election, 1949, 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.

Threeper! Nice job. --Gatoclass (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

6/14 DYK

On 14 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gheorghe Ştefănescu, 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.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Şelimbăr

I noticed that you've remerged my pages with the villages in Şelimbăr. A thing that I strongly oppose but feel it's not worth my time arguing about. But since you've done that I invite you to be consistent and merge all villages in Romania and elsewhere. You may start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_villages_in_Cluj Andreic777 (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, friend. Your words touched me, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Alas, I tuned in too late for my vote on that soap bubble issue to count - you made a very good point, to which I would have added a request for those who endorse the move to find a context where the name has no diacritics but other words do.

Alas, I'm putting on hold all the other common projects for a while, but I urge you to edit any and all of my sandboxes at your convenience. Dahn (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British West Indian labour unrest of 1934—1939, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

That block was accidental, it was my fault and I apologize. The autoblock should be fixed now. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone pointed out that Digwuren specifies up to a month, so I changed his block to a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Dioceses

You want to tackle them? They are the last that need to be done in Europe. :D Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be awesome :) Be nice to get all of Europe done. North America is finished, Oceania is finished, South America is finished. Now Europe! Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

John Paul, Sr.

Hiya. I originally intended to say he was from "Holland, The Netherlands" in the opening, but Wikipedia doesn't accept Holland, The Netherlands as valid. So I'm unsure of the correct wording. Is there a correct way to indicated the region and the Nation? (If Holland, The Netherlands is correct, it could just be manually done) CitiCat ^♫ 21:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vin americanii!

I have heard about a similar hope in Poland, for the Third World War to liberate Poland. Here are some English refs: [1], [2], [3] (this one also mention similar attitude among Ukrainians). Congratulations on another interesting article! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked as a sockpuppet of Bonaparte. :-D But seriously, do you want me to mention to him that you are a well-established user with 36,000 edits - who has been here since May 2006? Or do you want me to tell him he is 100% wrong that you follow the "same pattern" as Bonny. Please let me know if you would would prefer it if I assure him on his talk page or whether you would be willing to have yourself checked. Khoikhoi 01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, I knew it would work. I will leave a note on his talk page. Khoikhoi 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War

You may find it interesting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say Thank You for all the things you are putting into the Cold War article, especially the analysis part, because that seems to be lacking in the article. Also, since one of my big concerns with the article is its size, do you see anything that you believe could be cut? Hires an editor (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1971 Turkish coup d'état

On 28 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1971 Turkish coup d'état, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions of good faith..

I am not making speculations that Romanian nationalist know that Roma are only a subgroup. Look at what the user Rezistenta said here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roma_people#.22Roma.2FRomani_people.22_vs_.22Gypsies.22

"Roma cannot be preffered over gypsy for the very simple reason that Roma is a sub-group of the gypsies, this means not all gypsies are Roma". So he knows that not all "gypsies" are Roma.

You have received "The All Seeing Eye" for "maintaining neutrality". I hope you will continue to do so. Best regards. AKoan (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold War

I am not at all happy with Miyokan's edits, but I have had some sort of conflict with him (see e.g. this petty drama and this one), so I wouldn't like to revert him. However, I believe that tertiary sources like Britannica are unacceptable, especilly as there are plenty of scholarship published on this topic. Keep an eye on this. Colchicum (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Vin americanii!

Excellent work on the article. Thanks for adding additional sources. I went ahead and gave it a thumbs up.Nrswanson (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a one source tag is necessary anymore. You addressed the major issue which was the fact that the two main sections of the article only cited one source. Now they have two sources so no problems from my point of view. Good work. Your article is slated to appear in the next update.Nrswanson (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

CFR

Da, ştiu foarte bine că CFR este "Compania de Căi Ferate Române", deoarece eu am lucrat 2 ani în cadrul ei, şi am călătorit în toata România cu trenul şi te rog să mă crezi că am trecut prin 90% din gări. Nu voi mai trece. Razvanus. Am de gând să fac articole despre mai multe gări din România, deoarece cred că deţin (am acces) la momentul actual la foarte multe informaţii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvanus (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

7/1 DYK

On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vin americanii!, 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.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM on People's Militia

Saw you had listed these - two pages. Might you consider making a link at the Leningrad (whatever) Army page to the main name page, so we can centralise the discussion there, which will then impact the main N.O./PM, the Leningrad NO/PM Army, and the Soviet divisions page? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold War

Hi Biruitorul, I noticed that you were involved in its FAC in the past days. As i'm away on holiday since Friday and unable to contribute (although I might pop-in just like now), would you (if/where possible) take care of any issues within the FAC? Thanks and all the best. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

West Parish Elementary School

This article has been PRODded before (once by me), and the PROD subsequently removed. I'm taking this to AfD now since that seems to be the only way to go. Feel free to chime in. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:EgyptPMs

Hi, Biruitorul! I just saw that you created a template for Egyptian Prime ministers. Great job! I was going to do it myself, but now that you've done it, I'll just have to work on improving it rather than working on it from scratch. Regards. BomBom (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Preus

Please take a look at the references I added to Robert Preus. I think they are enough to show notability. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Preus. --Eastmain (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Amory Lovins

Hi. Would you care to makes some changes to this article to improve tone? Johnfos (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pre-review request

The article has MOS issues. For instance:

• Dashes. Year ranges like "1348-1471" need to use en dashes per WP:DASH.
• Is there really only one reference for the entire article? The lead should also have references.

Gary King (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre

I corrected the typo you noticed here. I'll note that the list does not include any victims of the Babi Yar massacre. Jd2718 (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Moldovans

I hope you do realize that by participating in the derailing of the discussion, whether by responding to provocation, or posting it yourself doesn't help any? I am rather interested in seeing your opinion and suggestions on those specific edits by Olahus, rather than yet another round of pointless bickering with Xasha. --Illythr (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to be back

Hi, thanks for the warm greeting. As I told Eurocopter last week I will be able to edit only sporadically... however I'll be glad to help whenever you guys need me. Anyway, thank you for keeping the Romanian Wiki community together, from what I've seen so far you are a real information broker in the Romanian informal network on the English Wikipedia. It's good that there's someone like you to coordinate things a bit in the face of so many self-inflated egos and traditional disunity that plague the virtual or real-life Romanian communities. Keep up the good work, Mentatus (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good - this is a good project for me to work on because I do not have enough time for lengthy and elaborate edits. As you might already know, I completed all the communes in the Constanţa County (a year ago or so). I do agree with you that adding articles for each and every tiny and God-forsaken village doesn't really make any sense (that's what I did so far, I added only the communes, not the component villages) since the articles won't store any other information beside the name and the commune they belong to, unless there's something relevant about the village itself to write about (e.g. an important historical event took place there and so on - which I guess it's gonna be pretty rare to start with).

Regarding the "Moldova conflict": Yes, it's silly and sad at the same time. I saw the "Moldovenist" cause just gained some new zealous proselytes ready to conduct edit-wars of attrition. I tend to stay out of this for the moment because of the time constraints - if you guys keep an eye on it I'm sure it won't get out of hand.

If there's anything else I can do give me a shout. Cheers, Mentatus (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ataman Tiutiunik

Would this be the newly created Yurii Tiutiunnyk‎? Our article is still being developed, it says he was shot in October 1930, Encyclopedia of Ukraine article says 1929, I just noticed that discrepancy. Hope that helps, I will work with user:Horlo (the creator) to expand. Ostap 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

July 10 DYK

On 10 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Dukes and Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg, 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.

--Bedford ^Pray 05:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Humour is a good thing, really

It took me a while to stop laughing. Petlura was not killed by the Soviets. Sholom Schwartzbard was the hero who have done it. Media Sapiens (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. it's called a conspiracy teory and it cant be taken seriously. "May" is a word of imagination. In real life, no-one ever found any prove the Soviets gave him the orders or where involved in any way. Scwartzbard did that heroic deed because 15 of his family members died in pogroms. Thats the whole case. He was of many who wanted to do it, he was of many who had a reason to do it, the huge number of streets after him in Israel proves it. The Soviets being involved? Conspiracy theories. I never liked those games. You can claim ny the same arguments Petlure was taken by a UFO. Media Sapiens (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard the pgrase "historical speculation"? It's when a historian wants to eat and writed a book which will cause noise. There is such a possibility, but it has the same number of real proves, i underline, not ideas and possibilities, but real stone-made proves, that Petlura was taken by a UFA, or that he is actualy still alive and lives on a beach in Miamy. Media Sapiens (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And the most likely is the version the the real historians agreed with, it was a revenge by someone who lost 15 family members in the pogroms. When someone's 15 members are killed, he doesn't ned the NKVD, the CIA, the MOSSAD or whatever to thent them. There's a reason he's a hero in Israel. Media Sapiens (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw on a TV program a version that Petlura was killed by one of his men over some fortune he stole. It's a logical version. He controled so many territories, murdered so many people, logical that he also took what they have. Logical someone might want it to. But do you see me talking as if it's the truth? No, Why? It's nothing nore then a version. Just like what you suggest. Media Sapiens (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For your information, you are arguing with banned user MVEi, a self described National Bolshevik who once claimed the people of Lviv were Hungarians, and made this comment which needs no explanation. His last sockpuppet was banned last week... Ostap 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You can read more of his offensive comments here: [4]. Ostap 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh...

Mikka posted around a few alerts about some kind of dispute going on at Talk:Michael_I_of_Romania. As I recall, your opinion on Michael is pretty high, so, perhaps you might be interested in taking a look over there? --Illythr (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Aah, the suspense! --Illythr (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Cokie's picture

File:Cokie Roberts-a.jpg

Hello Biruitorul, I am glad you uploaded Cokie Roberts's picture, I thought of doing the same thing yesterday when i uploaded her signature, becuase, just as you noticed, it is in the National Archives website, and in some other government websites, however, i did not upload the image because according to the website's privacy policy[5],

"not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain. Some materials have been donated or obtained from individuals or organizations and may be subject to restrictions on use".

However it also says,

"Images on our web site which are in the public domain may be used without permission." but if the image is indeed in the public domain for previous reason, then it should be uploaded with another licence.

Now if you did gave some thought to this predicament, and did see a way out of that copyright infringment, then its cool, I wont call for the image to be taken off! but i would like to know your reasoning behind it so i can myself upload pics in the future and have a valid reason to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mijotoba (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ups i just realized that i didnt sing the last comment, anyways, like i said, i will not say anything, i have wondered before about asking the flickr people for permission, but thats just a hassle, if in the event that someone does take your picture up, i will make some attempt to contact those greedy copyright waving users to share a pic. mijotoba (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hungarian Round Table Talks, 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.

Rudget (logs) 09:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On 12 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Constitution of Hungary, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Erastus Brainerd

Man, where do you find these sources? The Report of the Class Secretary of the Class of 1874 of Harvard College?? And I even lived four years of my life in Middletown, Connecticut, so it would have leapt out at me if I found anything more detailed about his birthplace. - Jmabel | Talk 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Félix Houphouët-Boigny

I recently noticed that Félix Houphouët-Boigny was being translated, but it seems like this process has been at a standstill for more than two months now. I recall your previous interest in translating the fr.wiki article, so I was wondering if you could look into that in the near future. Despite my unfamiliarity with the French language, I'd be glad to lend a hand by using a rough babelfish translation. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Editorofthewiki said it's okay if we take over the translating process. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll help again, now that there is renewed interest in the topic. Once this is complete, it will be one of Wikipedia's longest FA's, with over 90kb in the French version! Good luck collaborating with you! --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just got so many things going on in the wikiworld, I didn't have enough time to focus on this. User:Skyplane also volunteered to help, although they haven't made an edit in over two months. William Tubman and Leon Mba also need doing. But when we're done with this, we'll just tap ourselves on the back and remember we did something epic. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 05:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree

I have to agree with Erdeniss. Let the picture with the orthodox church as well as data from 2008. See you, Pilsner Desk (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Julian the Apostate (again)

I am contacting you because you participated in a recent discussion at Talk:Julian the Apostate about changing the title of the page. That discussion closed, and immediately afterwards a new proposal was created to move the page to Julian. Please give your opinion of this new proposal at Talk:Julian the Apostate#Requested_move_2. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

I usually don't send links but here goes :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANTDkfkoBaI Cheers. Hobartimus (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Biruitorul, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa!

Hi, Biru. I'm back (more or less), and I want to begin by thanking you again for the moral support. I'm sad to say that the outcome was as predicted, although the final moment still managed to come unexpectedly (there was an abrupt decline, which, in retrospect and given the suffering he was exposed to and the horrific state of hospitals in Romania, was probably for the best). I'm slowly coming to terms with it.

But now for better and more unusual news. I was editing some more on the Bogdan-Piteşti and Mateiu articles, and was wondering if there are some more sources out there. A fine one came along (and from what an outstanding author!), but, it turns out, I would partly be citing... myself (eight paragraph from the top). I'm truly humbled, and this ranks as one of the best things happening to me since I started editing wikipedia. But this leaves open the issue of citing that article... Should I ignore that part and focus on the rest? Hm. Dahn (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm again. Unfortunately, Giurescu says virtually nothing (other than a couple of generic banalities) about the Moldavian Revolution. Djuvara also largely ignores it, and in any case I don't have the book on me; it's safe to just paste the Djuvara references from the MK article, as they are virtually all that he has to say (note that they are mostly about what happened afterwards). I could do that and also revisit other sources I used in the past if it's okay by you, but I'm afraid there is little of substance on the actual events, if that is what you were looking for. I'll see what I can do today or, at the latest, tomorrow. Don't worry, if all goes well, a DYK is in the making. (Can I please also change the link to Constantinople? I know it sounds better to Orthodox ears, and I respect that, but at least for now the article it leads to stops dead in the 15th century, and makes a point about stopping there.)

Don't it seem like we're the good cop (you)-bad cop (me) of rowiki? :) Indeed, I'm glad to see things moving there, and, though I take little interest in the Spice Girls myself, I have to say that the guys doing pop over there put the other camps (except Plinul's, of course) to shame for now (well, I did a little pop myself).

Awright, I'll take your advice on Vianu's article - just allow me to quote it if the usual crowd should get the idea that I'm "on my high horse etc" ;).

Finally, a geographical query: I'm contemplating expanding the Anatol Baconsky article, but his birthplace is a mystery. He was born in Cofa, Bessarabia, supposedly in Hotin County. Would that be a village or part of a larger locality? Does it still exist? Is it still named Cofa? Google gives me the most idiotic results, and I can't either limit the search or access a better source. Dahn (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Salut!

Hi, Biru, I'm Vijay. From what I've seen and heard, you seem to be a remarkably good editor. We seem to have been involved in a few discussions recently (especially because I'm familiar with at least two users you know), but we never actually said anything directly to each other. So I just thought I'd wiki-introduce myself :) --Kuaichik (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Criminally little"?! But I have 25 of his movies on DVD sitting there on a shelf, just a few feet away from where I'm sitting right now! And they all have subtitles in English! --Kuaichik (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, mine is nothing so fancy! It's just a cheap birthday gift my dad got me from some online Indian shop. (Of course, by "cheap," I mean in price, not in value!! :-D) --Kuaichik (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I know a Malayalam movie like that from the 1960s, black-and-white with only one scene in color. I've never seen it, but I've heard about it.

Anyway, in case you were wondering, that "online Indian shop" is bdbazar.com. (And what my dad bought is the "Satyajit Ray Box Set (30% Off)" :)). --Kuaichik (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh! I've never actually seen Ritwik Ghatak's movies before...

You know, some of these are available online, too. The entire Apu trilogy is available on Google Videos with subtitles (although I guess you have that). So is Akaler Shondhoney, another Bengali movie by Mrinal Sen. There are three other art movies in other Indian languages I know of, too. --Kuaichik (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ohh! Îmi pare rǎu, dar nu sunt un expert de drepturi de autor. Um, I hope that makes sense. I had to look up "copyright" and make sure expert actually was a word in Romanian! But in case it still doesn't make sense: I'm not really much of an expert on copyrights and such. That's why I haven't even uploaded a single image on Wikipedia, ever! :-/ --Kuaichik (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Source

Hello. Thanks for fixing image source. Could you please put a link to the galley page, as per {{bsr}}? Thank you again!--OsamaK 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Stop removing tags with no reason, I spent long time while working.--OsamaK 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the tag? It doesn't say "This image is probably out of public domain".--OsamaK 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing, it is not useful to talk while you removing! Source of these images is requested as well as modern ones, there is no different Wikipedia is not an original _{or first} source, and its policies say that clearly.--OsamaK 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TABOO

Hi. Interested in your thoughts on this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

Image:Blanche-de-Castilla.jpg

Please, stop! This is a simple joke, this is not a photograph image, that's meaning, it may be drown recently.--OsamaK 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I may not know much at all about images, etc., and maybe I'm just saying something stupid, but isn't this disclaimer(? for lack of a better word) a bit harsh? --Kuaichik (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1970 floods in Romania DYK

On 22 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1970 floods in Romania, 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.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please confine yourself to Eastern Europe in future

Talk:William_Lyon_Mackenzie_King#Gallery

Adam_sk (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian Revolution of 1848

Well I haven't really been involved so far, but I understand your frustration. I'll have a look. Lampman (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Big thank you!

Hello, Biruitorul! I want to give you a huge thank you for your hard work on fixing images source. I'll try to find sometime for helping you. Few users who try to fix rather than useless discussion or reexplaining. Thank you again! --OsamaK 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been away so long....

...I'd forgotten just how satisfying it is to whack meaningless trivia sections into oblivion. Honestly...who thinks it's either helpful or necessary to quote every single reference to something ever made by a fictional character on TV last week?? K. Lásztocska^talk 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Sometimes I think that if some magic turul bird or whatever appeared out of nowhere and offered to grant me one wish, I wouldn't wish for world peace, a billion dollars, a Stradivarius violin or even my very own nuclear rowboat....I'd just wish that 75% of the planet's population would develop some common sense. (We need the remaining 25% to keep things amusing, though preferably not on Wikipedia.) Do let me know if you notice any particularly nice 19th-century photos tagged for deletion, I'll throw myself into the fray.

Back in action...yes, but in four days I'm going to be hit with a large dose of kryptonite in the form of three weeks in an internetless village in a picturesque backwood on the Bohemian-Moravian border. I'll be fully back in action, with the blessing of a large library and the curse of a large course-load, by September 1. When that date arrives, would you like to collaborate on perhaps working George Enescu up to an FA class article? It seems an excellent collaboration topic for us, given that it concerns a prominent Romanian who happened to be a musician. :) K. Lásztocska^talk 02:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lemme know if you start doing that - I might help with the, more prosaic aspects of his bio. "More prosaic" is what I do ;). And, KL, have a good one and hope to see you back soon. (Wait... that might be a little Johnny-come-lately from my part. But still, hope you had fun, dear Hungarian globe-trotter.) Dahn (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know?

On 24 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moldavian Revolution of 1848, 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.

--Ryan Postlethwaite 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should I apologize?

I've never deleted something on Wikipedia that obviously took someone hours to produce and which is a valuable addition to an article.

Adam_sk (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Félix Houphouët-Boigny

Alright, we've finished the translation and have moved on to the proofreading phase. It'd be splendid if you could lend a hand. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

O.o I didn't know Polaert was working on another article. Glad to see he's still cracking African FA quality articles...more for us to translate. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

edit to List of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories

I just wanted to say I really enjoyed your edit summary, "let's not get carried away" (and the edit itself). It made my day, actually. Best, --Allstar86 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

My apologies, Biru - I have failed you again. As I said I would do, I looked over the Djuvara book and some others, but they mention next to nothing. It took me a while to finish the Baconsky article (more than I had expected), and then I just didn't have the time to wiki-edit at all (as you may have noticed, I was very much inactive these past days, and I'm not sure this is set to improve over the next weeks). Dahn (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Great

So, you've managed to take a perfectly interesting set of images and condemned them to perpetual obscurity on the Commons. Bravo. I'm not entirely sure what it is that you think you've accomplished. But, I suppose I don't have the energy to argue about this - and you'd no doubt hale before the Inquisition again for disagreeing with you - so, I guess you win. Another classic Wikipedia outcome. Why do I even bother wasting my time with this?

Adam_sk (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

re

I did research before i wrote the commune articles. You should look in the Romanian Wikipedia and you will see that there are the same commune names. But if the articles in the Romanian wiki are misleading then so are mine. Mario1987 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirgheca

Thanks for leaving a note on his talk page. Did you say in Romanian that he should use the preview button more? Also, what categories do you think should be added to the Ioan Lemeni, Tiszapolgár, and Coasta lui Damian pages? Khoikhoi 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thx. Khoikhoi 01:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Satu Mare

The Satu Mare page is an incredible mess, particularly the "History" section. Do you think you could help me clean it up? Khoikhoi 06:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ljubljana

Good morning Biruitorul,

I thank you for your message and I agree that the french article about Ljubljana is not complete at this time. That's why the article will only be a Good Article and not a Featured Article... To make a featured article, it should be necessary to use a complete book (and not only website) about the town. But I don't want to do that by myself. I prefer making 5 others articles with the level GA than only one with the level FA. I have still a lot of works to do about Slovenia on the French Wikipédia so I will stop with Ljubljana now. Nevertheless, if I see new informations in the future on the english wikipedia (with references), I will add them on the french wikipedia. And good job for your translation ! Sylfred1977 Speak 14:14, 2-08-2008 (CET) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nocoroco

Thanks for cleaning up Nocoroco. The breaks were there to accomodate a picture that I had to remove as unfree content, and I forgot to remove the breaks at the same time. Occupation was capitalized in the source, though I should have known better. Day was all my goof. Thanks again. Lvklock (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iraqi presidential election, 1995, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Putterham School

Good work on getting the Putterham School pics. Did you get Larz Anderson Park and Larz Anderson Auto Museum pics the same day? - House of Scandal (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Economy of Romania

Hey Biru. Can you please confirm whether the edits by 212.239.155.27 (talk · contribs) and 79.117.132.86 (talk · contribs) to Economy of Romania were accurate or not? The former IP changed a lot of dates from 2008 to 2007, etc. Khoikhoi 04:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a comment. BTW, you don't live in Romania, do you? That should be proof alone, unless I have been duped this entire time. ;-) Khoikhoi 04:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Romanian economic growth has been strong in the first quarter of this year. Unfortunately, overall European per-capita GDP statistics, even though recently published, only go through 2004/2005/2006. In those figures, Romania and Bulgaria trail the majority of their EU brethren, slightly behind Hungary and a bit more behind the Baltics. (Eurostat report here.)

P.S. "Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Malta, Portugal and Estonia were between 10% and 30% lower than the EU27 average. Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland were between 30% and 50% lower, while both Romania and Bulgaria were about 60 percent below the EU27 average." 2007 preliminaries here. :-) —PētersV (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

?

See ? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Decision posted. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait

Could you make the articles a bit slower? New Page patrol is having a hard time whitelisting your new pages. --mboverload@ 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:DYK question

Sure, I'll do it. The funny thing is, I didn't know you couldn't post your own hooks on T:DYK/Next update until yesterday. Gee, did I mess up a lot! --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I created roughly 1,000 pages for two days back in February on French communes (yes, I am familiar with the term). All the claiming about going too fast went to User:Blofeld of SPECTRE. (: I did get yelled at, on a much smaller scale, creating unsourced articles on Hungarian villages. Right now, I'm working on stubbing all the villages in Burkina Faso, except this time it takes ~1 minute for each and the population figures, coordinates, and Maplandia link are different on each. FHB is going well, it's currently at peer review, as is Leon M'ba. I pretty much single-handedly wrote Jean-Hilaire Aubame and 1964 Gabon coup d'etat, which are at GAN and FAC respectively. The funny thing about 1964 is that it didn't even exist until 5 days ago! --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Trinity Cathedral, Sibiu and Metropolitan Cathedral, Iaşi DYKs

On 12 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Holy Trinity Cathedral, Sibiu, and Metropolitan Cathedral, Iaşi, 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.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Romanian flag

Thanks, you have done a great job by translating my article! --Alex:Dan (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing it with other FA on flags, they should. --Alex:Dan (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Very good work on finishing the remaining communes of Arad County in Romania. I was the one who made quite a few of the other communes, and I must commend you for finishing them out :). Cheers, and great work, Razorflame 03:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

50

		The 50 DYK Medal
		With great pleasure and on behalf of the wiki can I thank you for your contribution of fifty (and more) DYK articles. I particularly enjoy that they are not "another dead anglo/american"! Keep up the good work (the 100 template is a really nice shade of yellow), Cheers Victuallers (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Spor la treaba Biru, de la pranz la miezul noptii !

Ti-asi fi recunoscator daca ai putea arunca o privire asupra articolului Controversy about national identity in Moldova, creat de mine si modificat de Illythr (si poate de altii, pâna vei citi acest mesaj) si sa intervii cum socotesti mai bine, macar în domeniul formal (Illythr scrie ca referintele cer toate verificare, ce înseamna asta?). Sunt foarte începator pe Wiki englez care pare foarte riguros mai ales pe planul formal, uneori pierzând astfel din vedere evidenta, sau poate înnecând-o în amanunte si citate.

În ceeace priveste Republica Moldova, amanuntele si citatele nu-s fara POV. Majoritatea tind a sustine procesul în curs de re-creare a unei identitati locale, nu ca in Elvetia si Belgia pe baza teritoriala, ceeace nu ar fi cu nimic deranjant (in Elvetia si Belgia identitatea tine de tara si nu împiedica apartenanta culturala si lingvistica la sferele germana, franceza, italiana sau nederlandeza) ci pe o baza izolationiasta si separatista (identitatea tine de proiectul politic de a desparti cu orice pret vorbitorii limbii Daco-Romane din R. Moldova de cei din România, dar nu se atinge de cultura rusa, ucraineana s.a.m.d. din Moldova).

Multumesc pentru orice contributie. Cu bine, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

To begin with, let me thank you for this - I remember I struggled trying to locate where such deaths were categorized, and knew that it deserved a cat. You solved that problem for all of us.

The sad news is that my computer is on the fritz and has been so ever since I got back, and I'm only catching windows of activity on various others (talk about bad timing - I had some major plans). I cannot get committed into anything for the time being, but I expect/hope to fix the problem one way or the other in the coming days. I hope to God I did not seem aloof or ungrateful. Dahn (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Romania -- Foreign Relations

Hey Biruitorul,

Xasha doesn't seem to contest the government's political preferences, he's just saying we're aggregating sources in what would amount to original research. Indeed, the relevant policy does make sense, in that you could weasel any conclusion on any topic by introducing false causality between well-established events (e.g. imagine the POV introduced into Atheism if Stalin was introduced as a representative example of an atheist throughout the article). Therefore simply proving that the Moldovan government is pro-Russian is not in itself relevant -- Xasha wants a source which explicitly ties together the new government, its pro-Russian attitude, and the fact that with this new, pro-Russian government was the cause for the lack of further unification efforts. While I agree the three go hand in hand for any person even remotely familiar with the region's history, Xasha is a bit more rigorous than others and needs to be pointed to the exact phrase in the source which states that. Please (re)visit Xasha's talk page and check out this section for my rationale: User talk:Xasha#Romania foreign relations section. --Gutza ^{T T+} 08:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I followed EdJohnston's advice and opened a discussion on Talk:Romania#Foreign relations. To be honest, I don't know how much good that will do, but at least I'm trying. --Gutza ^{T T+} 09:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Karlhabsburg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Karlhabsburg.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For now

Alas, I'm still struggling with the computer thing - it's delay after delay here. I hope to be doing something about it come next week, but I frankly don't know how long it will take them to fix it once they show up... I have a couple of hours at my disposal now, and I want to begin by addressing your post (not just for courtesy, but because I'm anxiously waiting to follow your leads when time and, well, technology permit).

1. Wow - great human story. Technically, his place of burial need not be sourced IMHO (I mean, people could see the grave provided his body wasn't moved in the meantime) - so, in case you do find out where it is, please add it to the article. An issue I struggled with was his name. Rowiki goes against the grain by having the article bear the "Baconschi" name, and then indicates that he did not prefer this spelling. Now, not only should we go with the name he chose rather than the one he was registered under (Caragialli, Eminowitsch yadda yadda), but we would need a source for any info on "Baconschi-official" vs "Baconsky-informal" and place it somewhere in the article (although none of this would be vital). What we can say for sure is that 99.99% of the sources use "Baconsky" and leave it at that. The case for his son seems to be different - as a diplomat, he is "Baconschi"; as a writer, he is "Baconsky" - this presumably credits the rumor about the original name registration. Maybe people in your family remember something about this issue, and, if my hunches are true, we could see if there are published sources mentioning it at all.

2. Oh, I could go with either (though, I agree, the second one sounds nicer - but should it be "day" or "Day"? and how about "Saint Michael's Day/day 1945"?).

3. Hm. I take no responsibility for the pictures in the article - feel free to reorganise/remove/revamp as you please. I only tried to place them in some coherent form, but it's hard dealing with what the user who took them wants and trying to at least explain what they are - to my mind, most of them are borderline irrelevant, impossible to describe with captions, and, yes, repetitive. The Rondul pictures (all? most?) woulkd make a nice addition. Btw, you may consider starting an article on Rondul, linking it in the article, and then we could perhaps go around articles about the people portrayed spreading the link. (This is also partially my answer to your old query on the noticeboard page.) Btw, hope this is not too much to ask, but if/when you're in Bucharest, would you consider taking a picture of the Faculty of Law facade (preferably one of the figures themselves)? It has a lovely bas-relief by Mac Constantinescu, and is a prime example of the fascist-inspired art deco produced under Carol. I dream of using such a picture in a future article, but I don't own a camera and it's so out of my way.

4. Well, I'm worried about the reliability of the source - Lucman publishes all sort of neofascist books (this may be part of the "no, we're neutral" strategy that publishers of Legionary literature have developed) and they don't seem to be reviewed by serious scholars. And the text is not exactly what one would call "neutral" - reads more like a panegyric. I would advise looking into sources that aim higher. About the monument: interesting situation this. We could consider adding info from a source about the monument being vandalized, which would be relevant in itself (I googled "monumentul lui armand calinescu vandalizat" and found a [rather shabby] Cronica Română article on this subject - for some reason, the settings on the computer I'm using won't let me paste linksa into editing windows); then we could add your picture to illustrate both the monument and the event. Sounds good?

I hope to be back soon, especially since I'm entertaing the notion of writing a single article about the Symbolist movement in Romania (and some on the Symbolists themselves), and I'm contemplating doing somethinmg about the sorry-ass articles on Romanian literature and art. And, of course, all the other issues - as hard as it is to keep up with your fantastic drive. Oh, and a minor thing to check in the near future - I noticed the Jebeleanu article (great stuff, but more is needed methinks); for now, perhaps you could add that he was married to Florica Cordescu[-Jebeleanu], herself a known graphic artist (article pending). I noticed her second name in a dictionary article I was going through a while back, and checked it against a 22 piece by VT ("Intre steagul partidului si Salvatore Adamo" - again, I can't copy the link, but googling it should get you there; it has some other relevant tidbits on this and other things). I'm going to settle my sights on the article when I get the time, but maybe you could use it in the meantime?

Well, hope to be back with more soon. Keep up the excellent work. Dahn (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but there's also a scene involving Justinian, with reddish figures and no columns breaking the composition (if I remember correctly). Now that I think about it, it may actually be on one side of the facade as seen from the boulevard (the one closest to but not facing the Opera, probably to the left of what's in the pictures). Don't get me wrong, those are good additions too, but that one is really something. I'm still not sure about the exact details beyond the general location, and I can't seem to find any picture of them, but they're described by Cioroianu in Pe umerii... (see the excerpt in Amicii URSS - I still can't link here...). Dahn (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

One more: you may have seen that editors using bots and other gadgets visit the Heliade article now and again, and "copyedit" words in Romanian to turn them into English words (they don't seem to bother reading the context). I remember we had this problem on Romanian Communist Party, and learning that there's a template which supposedly circumvents this accident - a {{lang|ro|}} with brackets on either side of the original title. This thing with the links where I'm at also extends to copy-pasting in the editing window (it's annoying!), so it would take me a couple of hours just to hunt down the previous errors and selectively add the template, writing it by hand each and every time. If you can help before I get back from a better machine with normal settings, I would greatly appreciate it. Dahn (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that last one: I got hold of a better machine in the meantime. It turns out there weren't as many as I thought. Dahn (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah... I'll wait for it to be at least simmering before I come near it. For now: I don't object to keeping both articles around, 's long as they lead to each other (a "history of something fictional" can survive, as long as the text makes it clear that it's fictional). Dahn (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:E-mail

It is strange-I enabled e-mail, but it doesn't seem to work for some reason. Hehe, by the amount of time the FAC has been running, I woudn't doubt it would be open by Halloween! I'll take a look at that hook (a poet and I don't even know it!) Regards Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen's Tower (Baia Mare)

On 19 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen's Tower (Baia Mare), 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fulbert Youlou

I'm glad to see Polaert produced another great article on fr.wiki. I was going to proceed with expanding FY in the next few weeks (I've picked up a bunch of books on Youlou, Congo-Brazzaville politics, etc). I think we should mesh my future expansion with the translation. We should then go back to the French sources and verify their contents (as recommended in the 1964 Gabon coup d'etat FAC). Sound good? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Goudi coup

Another superb translation. Great work. I ordered a book on Amazon. I should be able to push that article from GA to FA on fr:. Don't hesitate to tell me when you're working on an article I (mostly) wrote on fr: if you read something that might not be clear. Keep in touch anyway. By the way, I "changed" my pseudo on en: (and el:) because I moved to SUL. A bientot, O Kolymbitès (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC) P.S : je ne sais pas pourquoi je t'ecris en anglais, alors que bien sur tu lis parfaitement le français, va savoir...

Merci pour l'info. Thanks for the tip... O Kolymbitès (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help! And three cheers on writing an article of such pivotal importance to modern Greek history! :) I agree with you that a separate Military League article has no reason to exist, and that a simple redirect would suffice. I'll try to find some extra sources for the article over the next few days. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Unfortunately, my French is rather rusty, but if you need help, I'll be happy to contribute as I can (provided RL obligations don't interfere), especially with Greek-language sources. Cheers again, Constantine ✍ 19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Goudi coup

On 27 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goudi coup, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Romanian workers sport organisation in 1931?

Hi. Do you know what is the name of the Romanian affiliate of the Socialist Workers' Sport International, mentioned on http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH2001/JSH2801/JSH2801d.pdf, page 24? --Soman (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, Constanţa

On 29 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, Constanţa, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gabon

Yo Bir (do you mind if I call you that?). You probably know this altready, but I'm shooting for a 1964 Gabon coup featured topic. I need some somewhat-uninvolved editors to copyedit some of the articles in the series (especially Paul Gondjout - it's at FAC. Yeah, I do stink at this type of stuff. :) Thanks. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(Ignore this rambling if you please) It really is despicable how people are treated there. I hadn't honestly though I was going to pass, but some of the comments were flat out ridiculous. User:J.delanoy had the gall (and I respect him for this) to say this in response to Everyme's comments. This was also pretty disturbing, to say the least. It really should be no big deal, but instead has become one of the worst processes on Wikipedia. Of course, I was bombed for that too. I've seen so many users such as User:Ecoleetage (one of the friendliest people you will ever meet, let me tell you) and, as I look through it, you, fail for just as petty reasons. Anyway, I'm not going to join the hellhole for the foreeablw future; article wrtiting should be main point, with those dramaforums (ANI, RFC) way down the line. You keep up the good work to, ya hear! (Oh, and if edit summaries were as important as these people think, why isn't it required to use one?) Your friend (just to piss them off) the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Self redirect

I was going to reply on the AfD, but it's been closed. The previous version of Ciocănari, Vâlcea when I deleted it was "17:07, 27 September 2008 . . Biruitorul (Talk | contribs | block) (33 bytes) (←Redirected page to Ciocănari, Vâlcea)", not a redirect to Măciuca. That's what I alerted you to: it was a redirect to itself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

oh and...

Thanks for validating Holgate School DYK so quickly. The Armenian link was so intriguing that with some help we now have a double nom as we have the first Armenian school dyk. If you get a moment then you might revalidate (as you have already checked most of it). thx anyway. Vic aka Victuallers (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mata Hari

Mata Hari in german is a great article. But you should translate the text at Pier Gerlofs Donia into the german version for on yours cuz ours is better. thanx for the tipp Last king of Frisia (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Giurgiu

On 1 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Giurgiu, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Nominating stuff at a pretty fast pace there... have you even read it all?JJJ999 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

JDCC

I think it is useful for, as he was a commoner yes, he came from a famous and notable family. I reckon in time more of his ancestors will be covered by WP, but even at the moment I believe the info is useful in this case. David Beckham's family didn't build Belfast afterall!Traditional unionist (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've written a substantial academic paper on JDCC, but I don't believe I've read that bio, so if you could email that it would be appreciated. You say "which seems silly" - does it? Why so?Traditional unionist (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors Insulting to Nature

The article has been much improved since you remarked at AfD. Your opinion would be appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Traduit de ?

Hello,

I just saw that to respect the GFDL licence and the authors, we have to use this kind of template on fr: {{Traduit de|en|George II of Greece}} which links to the history of the original article we have translated. Do you have to do this sort of thing on en: ? Especially now that SUL exists ? O Kolymbitès (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, merci pour la réponse. O Kolymbitès (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting, from an egoist point of view , that the same could be done on some articles like History of the Cyclades or Goudi coup for instance. O Kolymbitès (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Merci, O Kolymbitès (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mammoth (magazine) and Paper Sky (magazine)

Please take a look at the edits I made to Mammoth (magazine) and Paper Sky (magazine). If an article's subject is notable, it is better to edit it to remove style problems than to try to delete it. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to become an admin?

I see you've contributed a lot to Wikipedia, and you regularly take part in admin-related areas like AfD. I probably would not be terribly authoritative as nominator, but your record speaks for itself. So, would you agree to "run" for adminship? VG ☎ 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Uman–Botoshany Offensive

Sincerelly it would be the same discussion as in the Yassy-Iaşi issue, and I really dont wanna start it again. However, if you'd do anything, you'll have my full support. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind checking your email please? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Eartha(artist) NPOV

Hi Biruitorul, I made changes to the first line as you suggested. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaSt (talk • contribs) 05:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for István Réti

On 12 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article István Réti, 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.

– RyanCross (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have warned Xasha again

Please see here: User talk:Xasha#Topic ban reminder 2 -- and he has explicitly acknowledged receiving the warning. As such, please feel free to report that user if you find yourselves clashing on RO/MO matters again at any time after this notice and before January 2009. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but fair warning is always a good idea -- he didn't really disrupt anything with those few edits, so I can't pretend any serious harm was done. But if he keeps it up it's obvious he's up to no good, as per ban, which makes him fair game. Anyway, we'll see how things develop. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Liste der Grafen und Fürsten von Ostfriesland

Dear Biruitorul. I guess I did the things you wanted me to do. If there is something more, please let me know. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Finished the second step. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DYK

Ai cumva acces la biblioteca la universitate si poti sa gasesti cartea asta: Faust, Patricia L., Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War, 1986. [6] ? Doar daca e ceva care poti face in 5 minute, sa nu stai sa cauti mult. Banuiesc ca ar fi suficient cuvantul tau ca intradevar cartea exista si scrie in ea ce zic earticolul. Dc76\^talk 21:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Acolo e toata chestia. Tipul pare sa fie relativ tanar (chiar si fata de noi), probabil a gasit pe internet un abstract de o pagina (a gasit BillC linkul) despre carte si peste jumatate de ce e acum in articol e introdus de acolo din abstract, dar scris mai bine. A facut desene la el pe calculator, a mai gasit altele pe WP si a iesit ceva bunisor. Acum, eu nu am dubii privitor veridicitatea informatiei din articol, ca la urma urmei ce are de castigat daca schimba culoarea uniformei sau epoletilor, dar articolul ar trebui dezvoltat. BillC, eu si inca un tip i-am sugerat sa-l mai dezvolte, fiindca are cartea (a scanat deja pagina de titlu). La observatia mea ca cingatoarele nu trebuie desenate cu calculatorul in 10 minute cu patrate, cercuri si curbe, si am sugerat (iprtetic) sa photografieze cingatoarea stra-strabunelului, el acum vreo 2-3 ceasuri a si facut asta :) adica avea cingatoarea in dulap :) Dc76\^talk 01:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interested in an Old Romanian text?

Peace of Busza: [7] and [8]. Dc76\^talk 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

check this out :) Dc76\^talk 11:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to be back

Hi. I answered on my talk page. While I catch up with what's been going on here, perhaps you could let me know what you think of the issue I raised here. Dahn (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. A bio would be indeed hard to find, but one could reconstruct the details of his career from a rather large number of reliable sources (some we have been dealing with for a while now). I think your concern is about his early life and his private life in general, right? From what I can tell, there isn't yet one single source that would be approaching NC from that angle and would be trustworthy. But we could apply the usual routine and line out the tidbits from various sources which deal with these topics more or less marginally (for example, Explorări în comunismul românesc briefly touches on his dad's Legionary sympathies, which I do recall was a point of contention back in the day). As much as I look forward to making that article look decent, I have to say the amount of work foreseeable to get there is quite the turnoff at the moment.

I'm glad we agree on Protopopescu. I'll remove the cat and see what happens - if anything, the redlink should be removed because the editor created another category leading to the same concept (?!). Btw, he seems to entertain the notion that I'm out to get him, precisely because I commented on his rather loose interpretation of quality standards on wikipedia - and I still stand by those comments. If I'm "part of the problem", could you please be "part of the solution" and let him at least consider using defaultsort? It's getting more and more frustrating having to see editors create categories that they never check themselves, but then the prospect of what I'd have to endure if I tell him so myself (coupled with my manifest lack of diplomatic skills)... you get the picture. Thanks in advance. Dahn (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Urmuz lives! (Or is it Kafka?) Hopefully, it's making much profit (btw, is this why ne pas se pencher au dehors?)

And: oh my, is that a recent interview with Apostol? I know he gave one in 2003 or smthg, but the thought of him still at it is disconcerting (although he is a good advertisement for the simple life - "go to the top, get shot to pieces; fail to reach the top when all odds are in your favor, live to 140"). But yes, we need more on NC's rise and the theories built on it (though I don't think we'd be pressed to include the once-popular rumor about him having been Dej's "special friend" in prison). Dahn (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, is the NPCR (or, as they have it, "nPCR") noteworthy? (Gee, at some point, I/we have to consider a "legacy" section here.) Dahn (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely - PSM, AS and perhaps the Nepeceristi (just for the fun of it) would get takes (nPCR a brief mention, if proven noteworthy). But, then, well, you know... we'd need to have to fit all of this evenly and neutrally. And I'd also see a problem with artistic or literary representations, not to mention historiography: do we go into much/some/any detail about these? We would have good sourcing on stuff from Puterea şi adevărul to Comisarul Moldovan, but how much of this is directly connected to the party (at a time when virtually everything went through political channels, but not all things were about the political channels), and is there a difference between, say, films about the party and films about x or y party activist? Food for thought.

Great stuff on the unis, and I see no problem with the double dates. Concerning your question: no, not really, unless you count Iorga's thing in Văleni as a university (still, I'm not sure it's not functioning again now). But, hey, they come close (btw, "UPA" is missing from your list, not that I myself have ever heard of it before reading the articles above...). Dahn (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, sorry 'bout that. I didn't have the room to write down a full explanation - sure he is notable, and so would be Fănuş Neagu, but neither is a native (at least, when it comes to moscopol, the article doesn't say it, and I don't know what to rely on). What's annoying is that what those editors do is to abuse the term "native" (either because they don't get the nuance or don't want to); sure, it could become an "everybody who lived there" section - but, if you remember what we both + Turgidson discussed, that would not only be risky, it would encourage editors to write down everyone who has ever inhaled and exhaled once or twice in x city... Dahn (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Right you are - I got lost between the info on him and that on his dad. Dahn (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DYKs

FYI I really don't check e-mail often, so if you want me to verify a hook please alert me on my talk page. :) ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks interesting. I'm currently working on Hubert Maga and the 1963 Dahomey coup d'etat because I borrowed a book whose due date is approaching! I'm also working on 2003 Bam earthquake, but that Somali election/coup will be on my ever growing to-do list. As far as I know 1964 Gabon and Nishkid's Saint-Sylvestre coup d'etat are the only articles on coups in a continent which must have experianced hundreds. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Vrsac article.

Census from 2002 is not correct, due to Serbian nationalist government. I live there, nobody came to ask me, or any of my Romanian friends/family what ethnicity we are. I am not inventing the figures, i am born in Vrsac, and i know very well the ethnic structure. It is ridiculous that Hungarians have greater population than Romanians, and Romanians represent 30% of Vrsac municipal.

There is no secret that the Serbian government had tried persistently for the past 50 years to minimize the number of all minorities in Serbia, especially the Romanian one (Vlah). Even in the federal republic of Yugoslavia, under Tito.

AS you say, "know very well" and REALLY know it (live there) there is a big ddifference, i did`t invented these numbers, in the 2008 year there was a research saying these things i am saying here. Romanians represent 30% of population in Vrsac municipal. If you take a walk in Vrsac you`l see it too. Census done by Serbian government is not a reliable source, it`s an something you use for little children as a bed-time story , of course Serbian children.

Looks like it`s not clear that i am not writing my OPINION or my INTERPRETATION of some articles/information, i am saying like every citizen of Serbia knows it. These sources by Serbian nationalist government is not accurate.

PS: 2 weeks ago Romanian office in Vrsac was vandalized by Serbian nationalists because we represent a large minority there. This is silly, Romanians have schools in Romanian language, theater, Library, University and all this for 1000 Romanians (what serbian census say) that live in VRsac??? Don`t be ridiculous.iadrian (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You said "in the 2008 year there was a research saying these things i am saying here" A sourse for that research would really help. Because, suppose I accept your arguments. Do you think that everyone the rest will accept? They will only accept if there is a sourse. Ditto for the vandalization 2 weeks ago. Not a single paper in the entire world reported that? Just bring the sourse and it should be absolutely fine. Even if it is offline: cite exactly the title, number, page, etc. and it's ok. Also, please do elaborate in the article that "Romanians have schools in Romanian language, theater, Library, University". I, for one, never knew about that! Own university?! Also, why did you revert "Famous residents" away from alphabetical order. Change only things that you do consider problematic. There is nothing wrong with alphabetic order. Dc76\^talk 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it`s been reported. I have the source for that but i can`t put on the Vrsac page that Romanian office was vandalized... I have the web page. I will try to get more specific information about Romanians facilities in Vrsac and add them to the Vrsac page. Romanians have even a university in Vrsac, and all that for 1000+ people that are by serbian census ... Especially in Serbia... I am sorry about the alphabetic order, my mistake there. iadrian (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. Dc76\^talk 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

PRODding of ArenaTV

Hi, I noticed that you'd PRODed the article ArenaTV back on the 28th, but this was only after your earlier PROD with the same rationale had been validly contested. While it might seem like a clear-cut case to you, guidelines require that in this situation you take the article to AFD instead of re-tagging it for PROD. I've thus removed the PROD tag, but will leave it to you to take it to AFD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

See here for the relevant guideline; anybody can remove the PROD tag and it counts as a valid contestation. I'd just like to restate however that my removal of your re-added PROD does not mean that I disagree with your nominating it for deletion, and I do think you should take it to AFD to get more opinions on whether it should be deleted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'll take a look. I hadn't been watching that article, so I hadn't noticed it on my own. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems User:RZimmerwald has been pushing Soviet POV in a number of articles all over the formerly occupied territories. An activist, I presume? Not unlike User:Bloomfield/User:Kidsunited, except he doesn't appear to understand Estonian language and may speak Hungarian language.

At this time of day, I'm a bit busy, but I hope to take a more thorough look at his ideas later. Again, thanks for informing me of this incident. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering how fast he ended up reaching Occupation of the Baltic states, I'd suspect a reincarnation of Petri Krohn, with the exception that there is no evidence of Mr. Krohn understanding or using Hungarian. (On [[9]], he spells the name of a source as Kangelaslik lehekülg eesti tőőlisk-lassi ajaloos using the letters ő instead of ö. The former is, to my knowledge, only used in Hungarian, and is rather complicated to type in most non-Hungarian computing environments, which suggest a Hungarian-language environment was used to type this. Mr. Krohn, on the other hand, speaks Finnish natively, and 'ö' is a common Finnish letter and vowel, so he would have no trouble recognising and entering it.) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

<intruding>Digwuren, I don't aim to disprove your case (you may be right for all I can tell), but the letter ő is found in the "Latin" section at the bottom of editing windows. That's where I get my diacritics from, so presumably others are doing it as well. I also remember that, in the beginning, I was using ǎ for the Romanian ă, until Bogdangiusca made me aware that the other variant existed.</intruding>

But, hey, I have it on good authority that I'm illiterate ;). (This is a joke between me and Biru, I'm afraid can't let you in on it.) Dahn (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Anyway, I still believe that while User:RZimmerwald is like mr. Krohn, he is not him. My current best hypothesis is that he is Anonimu. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 02:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

iadrian_yu

Hello,

I need your opinion. This graphic clearly contradict with the Serbian 2002 census. Can you please take a look at this link and tell me what do you think. I know that it is about Romanian language, but who speaks Romanian in Serbia than Romanians. Here is the link. It`s in the "Legal status in Vojvodina" section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language

Thanks.

Hello,

About Vrsac page, at demographics, i wish to change this sentence "Some Romanians from Serbia claim that the above official results from the Serbian Statistical Office underestimate the number of Romanians." to "Some Romanian organizations from Serbia claim that the above official results from the Serbian Statistical Office underestimate the number of Romanians." . It the document represented, it is written on page 12, "Organizatiile romanesti au contestat oficial recensamantul din 2002 in fata guvernului sarb si OSCE. Romania a tacut chitic.". Is it ok ? Thanks iadrian (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Panorama law

I saw it's been discussed in the past, but not applied: no reasonable person would argue for applying this. The only thing it could do would be ruin the FAC because it is being treated as a separate case when it's part of something larger that has to be treated globally. If there's an issue with freedom of panorama in Bulgaria, a FAC about a small town in that country isn't really the place to discuss that, in my opinion.

In all fairness, I don't think petitioning to the government would help, and I wouldn't do that anyway; the reason is not the mafia (why would any mafia care about that?!), but the bureaucracy and the lack of competence. 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about that; guess I should become a mafioso in order to make myself heard :D Anyways, copyright paranoia is pretty much the best way to describe it, it's spot on. Todor→Bozhinov 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

History of the Moldovan language merge

Based on the discussion in this article's talk page, I made a proposal [10] and gave its rationale [11]. You are receiving this standard message because during the last 12 months you have editted either this article or its talk page, or both. Dc76\^talk 00:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, Could I politely suggest you step away from this AfD for a little bit, before people start making accusations of ownership etc. You've stated your case, and I and others will add their opinions, but I would suggest you do not reply to every comment directed at you. The closing admit will treat these comments with the attention they are due, and you do not wish to be taken in the same vein. Kind regards ^Khukri 16:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Davenport, Iowa

In case you don't check the FAC in the near future, I'm headed to the library today and tomorrow to finish up with your concerns. CTJF83Talk 18:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! I've been too busy working to go to the library yet. I will have time on Tuesday to go, but not before. Hopefully the FAC doesn't fail by then. CTJF83Talk 07:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning up Central Illinois, I need to check my work better next time. Marcusmax(speak) 03:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Contact Me...

Biruitorul

As you are a Romanian Anglophile with a sense of history, I may have something which may interest you.

My user name is Concomitant.

Concomitant (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Romanian flag (2)

I've added it to Peer review. Hope for the best. --Alex:D (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cică e prea lung şi are prea multe imagini. Mă gândeam să creez un articol separat cu istoria, iar în Flag of Romania doar să rezum toată povestea. --Alex:D (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Păi nu pierdem nimic, doar că mutăm istoria într-un articol nou şi în Flag of Romania doar o rezumăm. În ceea ce priveşte imaginile, am făcut o galerie pe commons, aşa că am putea menţine doar esenţialul. --Alex:D (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Articolul a ieşit cam aşa: User:Alex:D/Project. --Alex:D (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Am descoperit HG 1157/2001 care extinde legea 75/1994 si precizeaza si contraventii. Am vazut ca unele dintre FA despre steaguri contin si contraventiile prevazute de lege. Poate ar trebui sa le includem si noi: [12]. --Alex:D (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cum ti se pare acum? --Alex:D (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Karen Bass images

You're correct, thank you. I'm not too familiar with picture deletion, but I read the article on it and try to move to delete them properly. Hekerui (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of William Hart(actor)

I have nominated William Hart(actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barboi Church

No problem. I speak French, Spanish and Russian in addition to English, but Romanian is not my strong point. :)

It looks like a good article, and looking at the sources I saw the word 'Barboi' and a few other works I recognised from my studies of Latin languages. Well written! LGF1992UK (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Bărboi Church

On 25 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bărboi Church, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Romanian Generals

Thanks for the note, I'll go fix the diacritics. But I'm also concerned about what you said about notability - I'd rather not waste time if some of these guys aren't notable. Do you have any opinion over what makes a general notable? FlyingToaster 06:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Biruitorul. I'll take your advice and only add generals I can write a lot about. And sorry for all the not-so-notable guys earlier - I'm not trying to step on any toes, just assumed (it seems wrongly) that being a general was enough to be notable and have an article expanded later. A list would probably work a lot better - I'll talk to User:Eurocopter tigre before making one. :) FlyingToaster 07:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

Well, I had seen the project talk page, but I hadn't made up my mind. The fact is I just don't know what word is preferable in English, and, as I previously did, I tend to just follow the existing norm. What is annoying, especially when you just want to follow the existing norm, is that this naming exercise was not carried out over the long years we've had the article. Also, I'm as surprised as the next guy to see that I am apparently the only active one in the Rom/Roma/Romani/Romany project; I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm representing it, because I'm really not the most competent person to have signed up there... But thanks for pointing it out.

On the older issue: those templates seem to be just too darn "attractive". I guess that, when one has a limited knowledge of the language we use here, and little interest in building the web by accessing obscure professional sources, we have to deal with endless and colorful repetition. Can I actively ignore them? I'm sure gonna try ;). Dahn (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		While I was absent, did you perchance fill out all the commune redlinks?! I keep bumping into new ones, and then the templates at the bottom are all-blue now (for just about any locality I had to deal with). Kudos! Dahn (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me see.

On the Bundesarchiv (hadn't noticed it, and it's superb!) and a Romanian equivalent, I can only say I'm not holding my breath either. We have yet to see Romanian authorities actually adopting a common sense view on what is and isn't copyrighted and enforcing it (there is, afaict, no notion of "un-copyrighted by the state"). Also, Romania is still in that loophole where a document being archived by the state is not easier to access, but harder...

The long list of names is daunting (tip of the iceberg, I assume). Indeed, it's hard work just selecting them for AfD. At a quick glance, I'd say Georgescu, Acél and maybe Stoenescu and Markovits are "keep"-worthy. I'd understand if you don't want to deal with them just yet, so, in case you do not AfD (some of) them by the time of my next wikipedia session (at some point during the next 48 hours or so), I'll AfD them myself and get them off your hands.

As much as I have grown to dislike pure housekeeping, I may also just help you on those localities categories. Btw, do you plan to start or end by AfDing the "village" categories? And then Giurtelec (which I had bumped into once)... yeah, but then again, how much of the info is in any way relevant? (I refer you specifically to the "Accidents" section.) And then the format, the sourcing and the tone...

Colegiu. Hm. I tend to translate it as College (incidentally, I just did so on Sever Voinescu). I'm not married to it, and I think that when I faced the same problem I took a quick look into how it was translated in some existing article. Lazy Dahn wants to say "might as well leave it at that" (particularly since "liceu" presumably is the accepted standard for "high school"), but feel free to listen to inquisitive Dahn, who says "perhaps there's more to it". So, however you relate to this, I'll follow your decision. Dahn (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing. There is a serious WP:COI and general vanity issue involving a user we have interacted with and his legacy. I could perhaps tolerate the monopoly on sourcing for the few notable subjects that involve some of his cherished names (though not for ever), I could tolerate the vanity piece he created on rowiki (I can still ignore it, and they still don't seem to realize what WP:NOT is all about), but this takes the hybris prize. This editor is either clueless or ill-motivated, and the right questions need to be posed before this style o editing becomes to entrenched. Articles such as this one need to go through AfD, not just because they serve an ego and disseminate a fringe, I'm guessing self-promoted, source, but also because they refer to utter non-entities. Btw, reading through the wikisource fragment, I didn't know whether to laugh or sob at the mind-boggling, obscene, and pseudoscientific conclusions it draws. I also note that said editor has made a habit of claiming copyright ownership over this and that, without feeling the need to prove it or assume responsibility for it by filing a release for this project... Not that wikipedia really needs the sort of material he publishes. Dahn (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the message, and I'll follow your advice in due time. (I you want to delete this and my earlier post, please feel free to.)

More to follow on the other issues. Dahn (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've given me a lot to consider in your last posts, and I would like to address all the issues in one big post once I get a chance to look over the details. Unfortunately, I only have the time and attention span to do some relatively minor edits now, plus living up to my earlier promises concerning the Vilna Troupe article (for some reason, it was all I could concentrate on for a while). If I didn't yet go through AfD as promised (and I do apologize for that, as meaningless as my apologies must seem by now), it's mostly because I wanted to first look into some of the other notability issues you presented - most of those people are utterly unknown to me, so I'm gonna give them my personalized version of "a day in the court". To be frank, I also found the AfD process very time consuming and repetitive, so I was not that keen on igniting that spark. But once I get more time, I will revisit all of these issues. Dahn (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

James Godkin

You are right about that comma. Strawless (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Something else altogether

I was reading something and happened to fall upon a weird story: [13], [14], [15]. I could not find foreign sources confirming this, and it may not even be newsworthy yet, but I think it could eventually be worth an article. These Africa-Romania connections keep getting weirder and weirder... Dahn (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton's religion

Actually, Milton's religion is not known, or at least his denomination. He was a declared independent, and he believed many things that would place him with Arianism. He wasn't part of any religious denomination, and his beliefs were rather unique. The article is not complete, as it lacks mention of De Doctrina Christiana. However, there is quite a bit of mention about Christ and the Church of England on the page. If you want, you can add in a description of him as a puritan. Such a term is anachronistic but it isn't too far off. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want some background, there is always this, it is a start on his early life. It has some information. You could great a background section on the religion page if you want to discuss his actual religion in a few lines. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the Paula Goodspeed AfD

I had thought about starting the AfD, but I do not have a lot of experience bringing up articles that possibly violate WP:BLP1E, so I was about to ask an admin for their opinion. I just wanted to thank you since I know I was not the only person who thought the article failed notability guidelines. Keep up the good work. Aspects (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Romanian National Archives

Good news. I got the answer from the National Archives, and it's true: the pictures there can be used both commercially and non-commercially if properly attributed. We should be able to upload them to Commons under the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license.- Andrei (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Kudos, Andrei! Dahn (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussions

• Names for the number 0 (AfD discussion)

It's a good idea to monitor the discussions that one starts. Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Medium term requests

If you are interested, could you, please, help:

• finish translation here: Moldavian Plateau
• do a quality copyedit for synthax, lanaguage, etc here: Moldova (what do you think, any chance the article can get a higher rating?)
• is it legal for me to ask you for support here: Talk:Prehistoric Romania ? If you have different oppinion(s), that's ok, please oppose me then. There will be no offence, because I simply want to know how's better. In any case, rewritting of that article is needed, but it is different type of rewritting pending on the outcome of my proposals.

Medium or even long term. Not urgent, at all. Dc76\^talk 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

50th Romanian legislature

no, acuma nu prea inteleg care-i treaba asta cu "absolute overkill". nu e ceva iesit din comun sa ai o pagina despre ligislatura parlamentara. asa au canadienii. te rog sa-mi explici, ca nu pricep. --ES Vic (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Traducere

Ai cumva idee cum se traduce "fond de arhivă nr..."? --Alex:D (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Boganda

Hari's claims don't seem implausible, given the grand scheme of things, but based on the nature of the article, I'm not entirely sure about the appropriateness of using it as a source on Wikipedia. What do you think about in-text attribution ("according to Johann Hari, etc etc") ? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. Alright, I'm fine with your suggested course of action. By the way, I'm on winter break, so I finally have some time to work on African leader bios. Besides Youlou, are there any that you recommend I take a look at? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Siad Barre (namely the sections about his urban projects and the clan-based fighting). Do you also think the article presents a pro-Barre POV? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I strongly encourage you to remove your AfD comment. It's not going to be well recieved. Happy Holidays! ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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).

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

!!

Bine ma ca esti tu destept. Te bagi peste tot de parca ai fi Dumnezeu pe pamant. Lasa ma si pe altii sa acrie articole si dute si tu la pascut sau stiu io ce alte hobbiuri ai. Intelegi? Mario1987 10:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian people

Hi there. Please refrain from repeatedly reverting edits without discussion. Consider taking things to the Talk page instead, or simply walking away for a while. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Floarea reginei

Thanks for finding out the English-language translastion of this title. Much appriecated. Lugnuts (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Baia Mare

Hi

I am having difficulties with the user Kukini. I changed the article about Baia Mare quite a lot, the old one being very poorly written, yet the above user does not allow my article. Please help me and compare the old article with mine and see which one is better. Also, speak to the user and make him stop deleting my work. Cheers.

For clarity's sake, I responded to this user's concerns on his/her talk page and tried to work with him/her on improving the article. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 17:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the translation and your efforts. I have tried to do just what you suggested. Please feel invited to review my efforts and help in any way you feel appropriate. Thanks in advance. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Summer 1981 hunger demonstrations in Poland

Hi Biruitorul.

Thank you for your improvements of the article, I do appreciate your work. I know, Polish uses the diacritics, but seriously, I hate them and I somehow cannot make myself use them on Wikipedia (mea maxima culpa). As for your comment, you are totally right, the Catholic Church was bigger, but I do not really know how to count members of the church. Is one a member forever, since the baptism? There are no church IDs in Poland, there is and was not a church tax, like the one in Germany. Anyway, I have changed it, [16], hope it is better now. If you have a minute, look at this article 1981 warning strike in Poland. I am planning more on the events of the 1980-1981 Poland, so much happened during those months. I was too small to remember it all, but food shortages were a real problem, as a kid I did not have a chance to taste chocolate or bananas, my family's diet consisted mostly of potatoes and a little meat, if my parents were able to purchase some on the black market.

Greeting and thanks. Tymek (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the wishes, all the best to you, too. Yes, it is good those times are over. Hope they are over forever, but watching what is happening in Brussels, with Cohn-Bendit et consortes, I have mixed feelings about future of our continent. Tymek (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re

Mersi la fel! I checked the categories and everything seems to be ok. Those articles are about Imperial Russian Army units not covered previously within the Russian and Soviet task force (the articles are regarding fronts as military formations, not as locations). Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Right back at you. I'm sorry for my absence: aside from the holidays, it was mostly because I was really pissed off by one blind revert on the Gas Heart article, and did not want to act on it. And then things kept piling up on top of each other, but I'm ready to make my comeback now :). I hope to be back with more soon. Dahn (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lisa McMurray

In your reasoning you say the information can be covered elsewhere, yet you don't act on this in your vote? Can you explain why you voted delete rather than merge (which would be in line with your reasoning)? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Transylvania demographics

Hi, you can find details about Transylvania population (including 1910, 1919, 1920 censuses) at these links:

http://www.bogardi.com/gen/g100.htm

http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/erdang.htm

Regards Carpaticus (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the reason why the 1910 census is prevailing, although it is said that it was manipulated by Hungarian authorities quite a lot.

Carpaticus (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1918 or 1920

Hello. The Unification was on December 1, 1918, however the Traety of Trianon establised the borders of Romania and Hungary (1920). Until that, Transylvania was part of Hungary, or not(?).Baxter9 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Agrarian Party of Moldova

On January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agrarian Party of Moldova, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Theriso revolt

Hello, and a happy New Year! Great job yet again on the Theriso revolt page. I am afraid that, aside from copyediting, I have little time to add information. One major point I'd like to raise is this: perhaps most of the section "International reaction", which after all deals with the actions of international troops in Crete, should be merged with the section "A quasi civil war", to produce a more chronologically coherent account of the revolt's course. Also, it might be interesting to mention somehow the (many) similarities between the Theriso revolt and the later conflict between Venizelos and King Constantine, esp. the founding of a separate government, etc. I have the History of the Hellenic Nation by the Athens Academy (a standard work here in Greece), which has a quite extensive section on the revolt, but, alas, no time to go through it. When I find some, I'll add from it, though. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you Biruitorul for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, and happy New Year! I was wondering what's new around here. I won't be back for long though and I'll only be able to edit now and then. Meanwhile, get a load of this guy: [17], [18]. Could you please make sure he doesn't go overboard with his nationalistic frenzy? See you around, Mentatus (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the article covers an interesting subject (see Social class in the United States or Social stratification), but its current form is definitely not what a good Wikipedia article should look like. IMHO the article needs a good work-over - probably it's better to have it deleted or strip it down to stub level, as a basis for future editing. Regards, Mentatus (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi :)

Hi, and happy New Year! I was wondering what's new around here. Get a load of this guy:[19], [20],[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]Could you please make sure he doesn't go overboard with his nationalistic frenzy? See you around,Baxter9 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cătălin Răcănel

I had considered using the accented version of the name, however I was not able to verify that this is the correct version, even on Romanian-language websites. Do you have any prrof as to the necessity of the accents? If so, I'd appreciate a link or something like it. Thanks in advance. Madcynic (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Population in Transylvania in 1918-1920

Transylvania "Romanians formed the majority of Transylvanian population (57.3%), while Magyars (31.6%) and Germans (10.7%) were minority groups". Why do you need a citation for this? THX Carpaticus (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Piling on

If you are interested and can help, please find here a fragment (in Romanian) I coppied (by hand) from the book Ion Nistor "Istoria Basarabiei", Chişinău, Cartea moldovenească, 1991, reprint of 3rd edition, Cernăuţi, 1923. The fragment contains some information that can find its way in several articles. Can you please help do that, i.e. write 1-2 sentances in different articles that come to your mind as logical? The idea is to enrich Wikipedia to contain the info in that fragment. But you need to think at ease where is more appropriate to be informative and non-repetitive. (I am piling this on, just for the record. Obviously, nothing urgent). I am thinking if this kind of approach would be useful and we could contact more people for help? Than I could just read interesting books, and from time to time copy 1-2 pages of text to WP.Dc76\^talk 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW, I worked on merging Template:Moldova topics and Template:Moldovan topics. Which title do you think is better? If you have something to contribute in this, please feel free. Also I discovered Declaration of Independence of Moldova, and you even editted it once! (perhaps you forgot) :) So we should link to it in the future (and improve it, too). Also, I am affraid I feel a problem in the making here, here, and here. Any idea how to avoid it degenerating into conflict? I am very afraid it would boil out ugly, for I see a long queue of black angre clouds gathering on both sides. A re-enacting of Polish-Lithuanian one? God help not! Dc76\^talk 06:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Miluani

Hi. I don't understand why did you mix Miluani with Hida? Miluani is a village in Hida commune, but they are not identical. I cannot neither want to reverse all your edits, but it is evident that Miluani and Hida must have 2 different articles as it is in Romanian and other wikis as well. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.92.202 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Theriso revolt

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Theriso revolt, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Miluani

Fine by me.- Andrei (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ingenuity Gap hook

Quick question on this: what exactly constitutes "our" society? Remember, the world includes places like Canada and the US (themselves featuring a remarkable variety of development levels), but it also includes people like these. Perhaps "our" should be changed to "advanced Western"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Our" can probably be left out of that sentence. "...faced by societies are becoming...". Homer-Dixon is referring to all societies. I used "our" as a catch-all term. Not quite brilliant I admit. --maclean 05:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Could you, please, help me go through the articles in Category:Romania during World War II, and sort them into Category:Military history of Romania during World War II and/or Category:History of Romania (1940-1945) and/or Category:Communist Romania. Also, can you think of a good title for a category for 1945-1947 (if it exists), so that it can be sub cat of both Category:Kingdom of Romania and Category:Communist Romania? If there isn't, we would keep those articles in both categories. (In the end Category:Romania during World War II would have to be deleted.) Dc76\^talk 08:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, after my other deeds with categories, we would need to go through the entries in Category:Dacia, and move some of them to Category:Roman Dacia. Dc76\^talk 08:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we need Categories for Histories of Banat, Crisana, Maramures and Dobruja ? We have now for Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldavia, Bukovina, Bessarabia, and even for Transnistria, all splited by period, except Bukovina, which I don't think we need to split. I need a little to finish with Wallachia, but that's minor.

Afterwards, we can start to systematically diffuse the articles from Category:History of Romania and Category:History of Moldova into their subcats by period, by people, and by theme (military/political/ethnic/legal/religious). Dc76\^talk 14:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. No rush. I have found an interesting place where you can watch my deeds on a plate. Perhaps you knew about it. Dc76\^talk 08:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Check this out when you have some time: Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic controversy I will slowly (slowly, not today-tomorrow) try to organize them so that there is no repetition. I have this book: Dan Dungaciu, "Moldova ante portas", Tritonic, Bucureşti, 2006, which has a whole chapter, 74 pages dedicated to the issue. I should be able to squize into 1-2 pages for WP, to add to the existing articles. If you are aware of other articles for the same category, please add them.

By the way, what the h*** is this: Romanian language in Serbia vs. Vlach language in Serbia ? There wasn't even a merge sign. The text is identical, if my eyes don't deceive me. Dc76\^talk 13:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Baia Mare

Scuze pentru intarzierea cu care iti raspund, dar mi-a trebuit ceva timp pana sa iau aceasta decizie. Eu am dorit sa fac un bine. Contribui de mult timp pe Wikipedia si am chiar o pagina (Formula 1 in limba romana) care a avut la un moment dat stea galbena. Nu am mai avut insa timp sa continui proiectul... Iar acum cand prind cate un moment mai fac unele mici modificari pe ici pe colo. Dupa cum si tu poti sa vezi pagina in engleza dedicata Baii Mari este prost scrisa, este de fapt in limba roamana tradusa in engleza, nu in engleza, stii la ce ma refer. Nu spun ca engleza mea e perfecta, dar totusi este 100 de clase peste cea a celui care a scris pagina. Compara doar ce am scris eu si ce este acum acolo--Oliviu (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Saini

I appreciate your interest in improving the quality of the article. Your latest change is acceptable. Let us avoid tags without initiating the discussions. Otherwise, tagging is not helpful and being a Wikipedia veteran you would be most likely aware of this. Also, this article is to be seen in context of other caste and tribes from Indian subcontinent. Compare this with other articles on Indian castes and tribes on wikipedia, it is much superior. I know this is insufficient argument not to work on further improvements but quality improvement happens incrementally . Placing tags and doing radical edits without seeking to discuss it with the author first only encourages vandalism by others and does not give the author, who might have worked on deleted or tagged sections for months, any constructive feedback needed for quality improvement. I know this was not your intent or motive though. I look forward to work with you and others to improve this article further...it has come long way from what it was in August 2008 when I started editing it. I hope we would be able stay constructive and amicable in this effort. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

email

Hi there Biru, check your email please when you have some time. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As promised

Hello, my friend, and great to see you're still at the top of your form. I'm still recovering from a cold, a computer crash and wikistress level gone through the roof, but I'm again out and about - hopefully for good this time. Without further ado, here's my answers to some of the issues you raised in your latest posts (well, "latest" covers late 2008, and I thank you yet again for your patience).

Ciugudean, Gondi, Popovici etc. look like self-promotional material, but it may be trickier than that - indeed, AfD might be the way to go there. On "Suba" - it is actually "Mihai Şubă", as far as I can tel, and the "cited sources don't use it" argument is absurd (do they use any diacritic at all?). With Moţoc it may be trickier. I recall that, just a day before you posted that on my talk page, I was looking over a long interview with her in Dilema Veche, which, being an independent source, might provide "backing vocals" to the text (the abstract is here, but I can't track down the full text, and I think I disposed of the printed copy). True, as a UN bureaucrat, she is notable ex officio, but maybe this hype does. What is infuriating either way is that the aricle title carries no diacritic at all ("Suba" is spreading?).

Coming back on the Africa thing. I distinctly remember a piece of apocrypha that the more conservative (voir monarchist) side of my family treasured. Apparently (and the whole assumption seems dubious), King Leopold did not earn over Congo for spending his money and time on it, not for providing a buffer zone between other colonial interests, but for being the oldest male monarch in Europe, a criterion used by the Berlin Congress. The catch in this scenario is that, were Leopold to die, Congo would have been Romanian - given that Carol was apparently the second-oldest. I have wasted a lot of time trying to see not if the story is true (I can't imagine that much, especially when Romania itself must have been a colonial handful for Carol), but if this mythological frustration is shared by any other Romanians, and thus be marginally notable. Signs point to no, but I still treasure the old yarn.

All cats for the Ro legislatures would work. In fact, I was considering starting them along the same lines, but it's such a bore to actually fill them out. The main problem when it comes to the Great National Assembly is, as you have earlier pointed out yourself, that arguably most of the members were not notable, and that the info on membership itself may be obscure(d) - I suppose many were simply "somebody's gotta run for it" seat-fillers and aplaudaci, who never had a political career to speak of.

And thank you for the Fonoteca uploads. Myself, I have refrained until yesterday from adding there, mainly because I pictured we would end up with many duplicates were we to rush in all at the same time - apparently, it slowed down in the meantime, but I still think we should have come up with a bot to upload them systematically and name them on the basis of some system. Btw, it strikes me that the cat name on commons is ungrammatical - should we do something about this, or do we ignore it? 'Cause I still dislike starting the oh so complicated renaming procedures. (It's not the first time I notice commons users who don't have much knowledge of English grammar get in over their heads.)

On the COI issue (and sorry again for having put you on the spot). I still want to do something about that, but it would involve my pet peeves, and especially a confrontation with an editor who takes everything personally. In any case, I'll revisit this once I'm done with some other things. Dahn (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Fonoteca and commons. It may be useful if we managed to track down the persons in this image, for the legend and then perhaps inclusion in the individual image categories (provided it's not OR, as Fonoteca is silent on this issue). So far, I've spotted Zhou and Mikoyan but, well, they were both easy to tell apart. Dahn (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes: I forgot to thank you for the Tzara thing. The tag itself shows the kind of mentality I am facing: "I won't bother reading the article, you have to present the sources I ask for where I ask for them and how I want them, regardless of logic, common sense or wikipedia rules" (note the citneeded tag in the infobox... ah, crud). His misreading of WP:LEAD is also bewildering. But I'm leaving that for later.

1. Will do (slowly, but surely). Let's also consider subcats for legislatures.

2. Oh, brother. The Giurtelecu and "let me introduce you to my family" issues need to stop, but I don't even know where to start. The complicated and tedious AfDs are unnerving, particularly when they would have to be umbrella nominations (I for one don't even have a clear picture of where the nonsense stops - i.e. how many articles were created and touched by this irrational approach) and the editors take them personally. On the new Filotti article, note how one of the sources is a comment in a forum!!! I'm not paying that much attention to Pătrăşcanu now, but I plan to revamp it in the future (per what we talked) - when I revamp, I usually check all edits from my last. For now, i have to say it is annoying when editors use their own referencing system regardless of what's already in there, but let them play for now. At the moment, I'm more concerned about the latest edits here, where we have WP:SYNTH and manipulation of sources to say what they do not say (consider the editor's agenda).

3. Or one could just make the case with an admin: the original spelling of the name should prevail where the other variant is not a pseudonym, but a mere alternative rendition in a diacritic-free language. The fact that this was up for discussion at any moment is what's wrong here. Some things should simply not be up for debate. As for "Motoc" and "Moţoc": it's unlikely. It's just that one source when all other "with diacritic" sources use "Moţoc", and, just in case they're all mistaken, the Dilema piece, which implies person-to-person verification, uses "Moţoc".

4. Indeed. The link I believe you have in mind is on Todor's talk page, and the text should be somewhere in here (good stuff). Since we're on this subject: I also remember this quote from Boia's Istorie & mit, where Brătianu pleaded with Napoleon to have the union recognized, going so far as to claim that it would turn Romania into a virtual colony of France. Fortunately, it didn't.

5. I've made a comment on the cat talk page there some time ago, feel free to build on it (presuming consensus is needed for the change). The Lipovan: I suppose so, but that's just my guess. Dahn (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree, but that episode is a can of worms (and basing the article solely on Kiriţescu, which is what seems to have happened, doesn't help). On the other issue: got it, and I'm counting 30 or so deletable articles (talk about spam!); I agree 100% with the assessments. Dahn (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, you say not much happened, but then I notice that we have a new, redundant and rather nonsensical subcategorizing system for Romania's history. I can't begin to count the issues I take with it (we have touched on some in previous discussions, when sub-categorizing was only theoretical). What's more, someone needs to tell that guy that you don't create categories to even out things, but generally once there is something to even out. I also don't think that distinguishing periods from each other just by "something in brackets" is a reasonable approach. And then categories such as this - what do they mean? is the user aware that Wallachia still exists, and that people are still born there? Is this to say that, say, Category:People from Bucharest and Category:People from Prahova County belong there, or is it designed for people who were born before the 1850s? And, in case of the latter, how will I or anyone be prevented from interpreting it as the exact contrary? Users like that should really do some more getting informed, pondering and imagining each time he launches one of his mini-revolutions, and preferably before he jumps ahead into it. Dahn (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also: I strongly object to how this piece of crap (which started as POV fork of this, part of a personal vendetta one user had with me, and is a rantfull of OR and non-encyclopedic stuff) became "a period" in Romanian history. For starters, the union between Wallachia and Moldavia took place in stages, as we all know. That article covers only a number of years, and not even all of Cuza's reign. Cuza's own coup created the Principality of Romania, which was taken over by Carol. That entire constitutional development can fit into a small section of the Kingdom of Romania article, particularly since Carol himself was Domnitor until 1881; the rest is already in the Domnitor article, and the more obscure part are/should be aptly covered in the Cuza and Carol articles, as well as in the Danubian Principalities one. Do I have any chance of making such an enthusiastic editor reflect on the fact that we need not have five articles on the same subject? You can apparently still reach out to him, so would you please mediate? Dahn (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't begin to tell you how much that article has come to disgust me. I tried to NPOV it, tried to find the relevant main articles and keep it simple, tried to make it informative instead of a tribune for any of the two sides. It's funny how all POV-pushers on all sides don't bother with grammar, coherence, logic or format - it's not enough that they slant it, they ruin whatever they find; what's more, the extreme of two sides seem to have an agreement that the less it looks like an article the better". I'm with you: this is going into too much detail for something of no established relevancy, and exhibits the same pattern of citing sources for the point the user is making, not for the point they are making (if any). Add to this that the phrase is ungrammatical; nay, nonsensical. But how do I go about explaining that in terms that would be understood these determined users? And, what's more, isn't it a mere drop in the ocean when we look over other parts of the article? Dahn (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the widow-makers :D. Joke aside, those articles could only truly be lifted if competent editors on both sides recognize the problems and work together, in that painfully slow manner you detest (and, don't get me wrong, I actually relate with that sentiment - only things in this case are not that easy). The core problem is that of entrenched historiographical mannerisms, which both Romanians and Hungarians need to recognize in their respective discourse. On the one hand, Romanians (who, because of the Ceauşist-nationalist synthesis and its impact, take the prize in this field) need to stop returning to the tiresome and half-assed clichés about "precedence", "continuity" and other symptoms of Whig history. These still step in at the level of basic literacy, where many of our fellow editors seem to stop, and it takes a lifetime to undo the damage. On the other hand, Hungarian editors need to stop viewing history as a morality play at the end of which "the loser" becomes "the winner" by default. It seems like every part of the nationalist Hungarian vulgata comes with the sound of a violin and the taste of saccharin. It's not an issue a patriotism, I do believe: both sides can go on being patriotic - and fully literate, there really isn't a contradiction in terms. The one thing they need to grasp is a simple Romanian proverb: nu tot ce zboară se mănâncă. Oh, and wikipedia rules. And perhaps, just perhaps, the notion that there is a difference between an article and a posting in some forum (other than that you can't modify other posts in a forum).

Sorry, I'm just blowing off some steam. It's really all I can do for now. Dahn (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Afd? (I have to log off for a couple of hours, but I'll follow up with a nom when I get back.) Dahn (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Desbois

You did a nice clean-up. Thanks Savolya (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)savolyaSavolya (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Qazim Dervishi

Actually there are some internet sources but they are in Albanian language. There are no sources in English. The current material there was collected and chosen before being translated in English so I'm afaraid I can't put any sources in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholson1989 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok,mate. How do they look now? Nicholson1989 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Call for paper

You are hereby invited to contribute a paper to an international conference. :) Dc76\^talk 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: question about Ljubljana transport

Hey! The information is exact. Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Europe why did you delete the paragraph about the romanian people?

De ce ai sters paragrafele despre poporul român din articlolul Mongol invasion of Europe??? Măcar ai putea motiva ceea ce ai făcut! Parcă era o enciclopedie liberă. VOi oameni nu înţelegeţi că unii pierd ceva timp să scrie câteva opinii în aceste articole discriminatoare lipsite de contribuţia voastra "edificatoare". In loc să contribui sau să aduci imbunatatiri stergi ce au scris alţii.

Nu-mi spune că toate celelalte surse (mai ales cele despre Ungaria) sunt citate corect. uita-te la Rusia si ei au facut lafel la inceput numai ca acolo a avut cine sa aduca corecturi si nu sa stearga cum faceti voi. ce ti-a venit sa te iei tocmai de chestia asta? şi îţi spun eu sigur că se poate vorbi despre impactul pe care l-au avut aceste invazii şi despre români care existau cu siguranţă chiar dacă nu existau ca stat şi care chiar au luat parte la lupte în trupele ungureşti şi au murit cu zecile de mii. Mai documentează-te. Nu am decât surse româneşti să citez ♫Razool 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Veşnicia s-a născut la sat :)

Hi, done. There are some villages left, I'll try to merge them into the corresponding articles as soon as I have some spare time. Could you please re-post the policy agreed here somewhere on the Romanian WikiProject so people could see it, I've been already asked why I started moving things around.

As for that, I know what you mean, it does look like a lot of work... I'll see what I can do. Regards, Mentatus (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for intruding. Is it official that we should only ave articles or Romanian communes, and not for every village? On the Romanian WP they decided otherwise, and that in part helped them reach 50,000 articles (2 years ago). I'm asking because here I kept separate articles only for communes of Moldova (btw, help with those would be greatly appreciated), the situation in Moldova being slightly different (many one-village communes). Quite some times ago, I asked once how is it done here for Romania, and did not receive a definte answer. Dc76\^talk 22:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To barge in myself, and answer your dilemma for Moldova: set your criterion on the smallest administrative level, nothing below that; if, in Moldova, a village is a commune, write about the village as a commune, and only write about the commune even if it has several villages. I favor the system in Romania because the alternative implies forking info (what is in a village that isn't in its commune? and vice-versa), lots of stubs going nowhere, a venue for people who have nothing to contribute other than write about the most trivial info about the place they stem from, and being more Catholic than the Pope (the info doesn't appear to be covered by standard dictionaries in Romania, which won't usually even mention what villages form part of a commune - which we do/will/would).

Alas, all these things have happened and are happening on the Romanian wikipedia, with tacit encouragement, for, as you say, it helped them reach 50,000... Which was as valuable and intelligent as the communist doctoring of agricultural data to make Romania a "world's best" in rye or barley or jimson weed or whatever. Dahn (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You did not read carefully what I said. :) The alternative for Moldova simply did not make sense, so I dismissed it. There are 1,679 localities in Moldova. There are 65 cities (5 with municipality status, 60 without), 917 communes, and further 697 villages that are subordinated to either cities or communes. Hence, there are many one-village communes, which would have an article of their own anyway. The problem with the alternative is also that it suggests having an article for the villge X and a different one for the commune which center at X. In total, the potential for Moldova is 65+917=982 articles (plus a couple villages notable on their own). Of the 697 localities that would not have separate articles, there a few (57 by my count) with population over 1,000:

Long list of villages

• Bâc, commune Bubuieci, municipality of Chişinău, pop. 1,074
• Goian, commune Ciorescu, municipality of Chişinău, pop. 1,105
• Hulboaca, commune Grătieşti, municipality of Chişinău, pop. 1,553
• Ruseni, city of Anenii Noi, Anenii Noi district, pop. 1,090
• Todireşti, commune of Chetrosu, Anenii Noi district, pop. 1,843
• Ursoaia, commune of Lebedenco, Cahul district, pop. 1,263
• Paşcani, commune of Manta, Cahul district, pop. 1,060
• Victorovca, commune of Ciobalaccia, Cantemir district, pop. 1,322
• Hănăseni, commune of Pleşeni, Cantemir district, pop. 1,611
• Seliştea Nouă, commune of Tuzara, Călăraşi district, pop. 1,393
• Bogdanovca Veche, city of Cimişlia, Cimişlia district, pop. 1,353
• Ohrincea, city of Criuleni, Criuleni district, pop. 1,012
• Mălăieştii Noi, commune of Bălăbăneşti, Criuleni district, pop. 1,011
• Ratuş, commune of Drăsliceni, Criuleni district, pop. 1,226
• Hârtopul Mic, commune of Hârtopul Mare, Criuleni district, pop. 1,417
• Ciopleni, commune of Hruşova, Criuleni district, pop. 1,180
• Porumbeni, commune of Paşcani, Criuleni district, pop. 1,441
• Mahala, commune of Corjova, Dubăsari district, pop. 1,176
• Alexăndreni, city of Edineţ, Edineţ district, pop. 1,328
• Oneşti, commune of Zăbriceni, Edineţ district, pop. 1,196
• Doltu, commune of Işcălău, Făleşti district, pop. 1,073
• Gvozdova, commune of Gara Camencii, Floreşti district, pop. 1,141
• Dahnovici, commune of Bobeica, Hînceşti district, pop. 1,157
• Drăguşeni, commune of Bobeica, Hînceşti district, pop. 1,286
• Tălăieşti, commune of Crasnoarmeiscoe, Hînceşti district, pop. 2,166
• Pereni, commune of Paşcani, Hînceşti district, pop. 1,331
• Vulcăneşti, commune of Cioreşti, Nisporeni district, pop. 1,224
• Şendreni, commune of Vărzăreşti, Nisporeni district, pop. 1,428
• Rujniţa, commune of Bârlădeni, Ocniţa district, pop. 1,307
• Voroteţ, commune of Chiperceni, Orhei district, pop. 1,019
• Brăneşti, commune of Ivancea, Orhei district, pop. 2,486
• Furceni, commune of Ivancea, Orhei district, pop. 1,280
• Jora de Jos, commune of Jora de Mijloc, Orhei district, pop. 1,269
• Cişmea, commune of Pelivan, Orhei district, pop. 1,478
• Dişcova, commune of Puţintei, Orhei district, pop. 1,002
• Lucăşeuca, commune of Selişte, Orhei district, pop. 1,956
• Tabăra, commune of Vatici, Orhei district, pop. 1,024
• Ciorna, city of Rezina, Rezina district, pop. 1,202
• Ţahnăuţi, commune of Ţareuca, Rezina district, pop. 1,449
• Grigoreşti, commune of Alexăndreni, Sîngerei district, pop. 1,278
• Heciul Vechi, commune of Alexăndreni, Sîngerei district, pop. 1,591
• Ţipleteşti, commune of Alexăndreni, Sîngerei district, pop. 1,009
• Mândreştii Noi, commune of Bilicenii Noi, Sîngerei district, pop. 1,119
• Slobozia-Chişcăreni, commune of Chişcăreni, Sîngerei district, pop. 1,122
• Flămânzeni, commune of Coşcodeni, Sîngerei district, pop. 1,309
• Mărineşti, commune of Sângereii Noi, Sîngerei district, pop. 1,501
• Cerlina, commune of Nemireuca, Soroca district, pop. 1,300
• Slobozia-Cremene, commune of Vărăncău, Soroca district, pop. 1,461
• Găleştii Noi, commune of Găleşti, Străşeni district, pop. 1,199
• Drăguşeni, commune of Rădeni, Străşeni district, pop. 1,010
• Zamcioji, commune of Rădeni, Străşeni district, pop. 1,082
• Mihălaşa, city of Teleneşti, Teleneşti district, pop. 1,350
• Brânzenii Vechi, commune of Brânzenii Noi, Teleneşti district, pop. 1,906
• Frăsineşti, commune of Măcăreşti, Ungheni district, pop. 1,375
• Vulpeşti, commune of Mănoileşti, Ungheni district, pop. 1,466
• Gherman, commune of Sculeni, Ungheni district, pop. 1,730
• Semeni, commune of Zagarancea, Ungheni district, pop. 1,772

To these, of course, you would add some notable villages, such as this one you will love:

• Mana, commune of Selişte, Orhei district

cheers, Dc76\^talk 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So, if I read you right, we agree that not starting articles on villages makes no sense. Dahn (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I think we all agree that starting articles on villages makes no sense. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, crud: you're right. It's that extra not... not even a double negative to begin with. I originally wanted to write "not starting articles... makes sense" and then I thought, "is this emphasized enough?"; and then I started backspacing, but when I reached the "not", it looked oh so familiar that I must have forgotten what i wanted to do next. Trouble is it's not the first time I come up with the exact contradiction of what I want to say and not realize it. If you guys are really nice, I promise I'll let you call such a mishap "pulling a Dahn" from now on :D. Dahn (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had one more revamp to push in, as I bumped into stuff that turned out to be more and more interesting (btw: the comments he and Patapievici made about wikipedia are not just RS and notable, but they may also hopefully make admins on the Romanian side wake up and smell the coffee, if they haven't yet done so while reading what the alteredmedia crowd had to say). I'm gonna have to log off soon, but before I do: congrats to both you and Mentatus! For the seaside stuff: I for one would rather keep them as "resorts" and remove the village cats, but merger works to. As for Giurtelec... at the risk of making a Lăpuşneanu kind of promise, there'll be snip-snip when I return (if I forget to, which I sometimes do, please remind me). Dahn (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know hoe to pick at it: it has multiple issues,and I don't have a clear idea of what (if any) needs to be merged. Of the references cited, those that aren't just bogus (the editor appears to cite his personal interview with the mayor...) do not indicate their link to Giurtelec. Plus, just how many bogus pages link back to that article? (It's not just the cemeteries and buildings, but also personal names of people who are not notable under any definition of the word.) I'm not sure if they should also be redirected to the commune or deleted and salted.

At the moment, I say it's better and easier to remove all that's in there and redirect pure and simple. All relevant data on the commune could be reintroduced from reliable sources, properly cited - but I doubt that there's anything from the article which one would really pine for at the end of the process. Dahn (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not only that I argue not starting separate articles on villages (except Mana, of course, :-) ), but for over a year that I looked into the localities issue, I have editted everywhere to show up as [[commune name|village name]] or village name. The list I have given is simply nostalgia. Dc76\^talk 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a terrible jam. On one hand, AfDing the main article is likely to bring about that absurd "geo innately relevant" thing. Remove-to-redirect stuff is likely to cause another debate we'll never see the end of. On the other hand, I'm not sure the spam articles around the main one should be redirected or Afded and, yes, salted - we shouldn't even have the redirects. To top it all up, I think this has become a case for AN/I. I just don't know where to start!

Yes, I happened to see that "indefinite bloc" that lasted a couple of seconds. Did they really think you were Grawp (and, if so, why?!), or was it just because the admin wanted to do it to someone else and got all confused? Dahn (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, if you have a better idea of how far the Giurtelec thing stretches, lemme know somehow. Maybe we (well, I) can umbrella AfD them after the merger. Some qualify as speedy, I'd wager. Dahn (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lemme start by thanking you for the latest batch: I will definitely put it to (very) good use, sooner more than later. I absolutely loved the Bogza painting (I had never seen it before), but unfortunately I don't think it and others can actually be used - Brauner died in 1966; but of course it can and should be discussed in several articles. Btw, we wikipedians have something in common with art dealers: cynicism - the more artists die young, the more it is to our advantage :).

About the block and the calumnies: I hear you, brother. There is much confirmation of Murphian laws here: reliable editors have to seasonally prove themselves just because some twat shouted something to the Committee of Public Safety, and, at the other end, some sort "diplomatic immunity/can I freshen that up for you, sir" mystique develops around some of the most disturbing trolls and most glaring sockpuppets (and, like clockwork, just when you think you've had enough of this, the admins discover the evidence that was there from the beginning and block the poor souls). Most of the times, those who shout are sockpuppets, and the two issues of competence become intertwined. And, yes, apologies are in order whenever this happens: not just because they're polite, but also because they give one something palpable to present when some other rebel rouser decides to call attention to your block summary.

Galaţi. No, I don't know about it as such - only read that such incidents there and in other cities were used by Antonescu as pretexts for some of the deportations. Yes, it could be that NYT is wrong about this - but the incident itself seems rather obscure.

And thanks for the links. Keep an eye out for the AfDs. Dahn (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To complicate the matter further: did you see the new interwiki links on Giurtelec? Guess who started spamming all wikipedias he can read... Dahn (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwh. Dahn (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Patience. Once the eerie silence goes away... Dahn (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

LMAO (in fact, I find this difficult to right, because I'm still twitching with laughter). In that scenario, I export it only after I award the editor in question the Order of Victory ;). Dahn (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mihail Fărcăşanu

You mades a comment in an edit summary that perhaps deserves to be on the talk page of the article where it will more readily be seen. I agree that the article is weakly sourced and probably a bit POV (though also probably accurate in outline). Thanks for catching a few things I missed on my copyediting pass. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Governors of Madras

Thanks a lot for the biography of Lord Pentland. Yeah, I'm working on the Governors of Madras and would love to have biographies of those who served in the 21st century. As of now, I'm busy with other issues. I'll message a detailed list later. Once again, Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I was able to find detailed, useful biographies. Thanks a lot for your invaluable help! :-)-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 10:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stan Lee

Stan Lee was born in New York to Jewish-Romanian parents. Presumably Stan Lee spoke some Romanian growing up, so he had a lot of the Romanian-American experience even though he was born in the U.S. But I don't know whether he identifies as a Romanian-American, so maybe it is best to replace his image at Romanian-American with someone else. I did not place him there by the way, in case other people reading this talk page are confused  :) A from L.A. (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maramures

He told me he worked on this topic in Romanian Wikipedia and was looking into making the presentations in the two WP-ias interwiki-ed (no double meaning meant :-) ). After some discussion, he suggested this: [31]. I replied that in principle I agree. So, at least his intent was perfectly legitimate, IMHO. I am looking now into what did he do practically in the last 24 hours, and will get back to you. Dc76\^talk 02:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Two years ago, I moved Maramureş to Maramures and was reverted within minutes by Khoikhoi. He explained that once WP uses diacritics, they should be used. I believe that Maramureş is the correct place for the article to stay. Marmatia (in Latin) is less notable, and Maramaros (in Hungarian; I don't know the proper diacritics by heart) is used in more historic contexts (esp. 1867-1918, 1940-1944).

As far as I know, Maramuresh is only one version in Ukrainian, and it is closer to Rusyn speech, the other version being Maramaroschyna, or something like that. The name is in fact used very rarely in Ukraine, AFAIK. People from other parts of Ukraine do not know so much about Zakarpattia Oblast. To them, you should explain: the historical region whose 1/2 is in Romania and the other 1/2 are the 4 eastern-most of the 13 raions of the Zakarpattia Oblast. So, unless the name goes exponentially in usage in Ukrainian, IMHO, Maramureş is the only name we can stick with.

If we seach English sourses, we find a lot with it. It is true that the majority of them refer specifically to the present-day Maramureş County, but nevertheless if we read carefully, quite a number of those (even if it's 20%, that's still some large number) refer specifically to the historical region, and not to the county. And I don't imagine that number anything other than increasing in the future.

I checked now his edits. They seem fine. However, it's not over, yet. Here is what remains to do:

• check all redirects and modify them to point correctly. As you can see there is quite a number to check: [32]
• copyedit Maramureş and Maramureş (disambiguation). Dc76\^talk 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of the photos and the info. I'm thinking of starting a subpage for each WikiProject Moldova and Romania to gather useful links and references. You have given me a tone, and I have in my brouser's favorites another tone, and I never seem to get to the bottom of them, esp since there are so many. I will let you know. About Maramures, here I implecitely asked if we can hire a bot to help. And here I did some copyedit. Dc76\^talk 04:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Moldova/Bibliography. Please, fill free to add sourses you deem useful. Myself, I will go through my browser's favorites, then through books and sites I used on WP but not to full value. Also, I'll have to recall dosens that you told me about. As well as ... google search. Obviously, this is not something to be done right away. It would take time, but I hope in the end it would be something useful. Dc76\^talk 02:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this kind of sourses I meant. :-) If the books are available online, even only partially, link to them.

I would go as far as adding even websites, but with the caveat that if they are judged of poor quality, they should be removed, or at least a note to be added explaining to what extent the sourse is cridible. (For example, a legionary site would be all right for verifying mebership, doctrine, etc. In a sense, it is a primary spourse, but obviously not a secondary sourse. Adding it to the list should be ok, but a note primary sourse only, or something of the kind, should be placed.)

I have attempted prevously to do it in my userspace. But I realized, I would be unable to find and read all these books by myself. However, what I suggest now is larger than what is in my userspace. I want to add the sourses that we alrady found, but did not get to using them on WP to full extent. In particular, I would comb through the reference lists of various articles and fish out.

To be honest, I started this list for very selfish reasons: I have a pritty long "favorites" list in my web brouser, and there it's impossible to add comments about quality, it's more tedious to classify by topic, etc, etc. Not to mention that it wouldn't be collaborative. One thing I learned on WP is that collaboration is a real boost. Dc76\^talk 03:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PMs

Kudos - it looks great. The Moruzi thing... yes, the old regional v. national confusion. All sources I've ever touched refer to Catargiu as the first Romanian PM. Dahn (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw: should the presence of the Ro heads of state template on an article automatically add that article to the generic category? We have a tree (I tried to sort it out, because some of the newer categories made absolutely no sense), and the template only puts them back on the basic level. Dahn (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me visit you with one more issue. This is good in that there is at least one place grouping a single variant of the bishopric names (I came to it searching for that). But do you perchance have the strength to copyedit it (they went from no links to everything in bold, and it looks like a really bad nosebleed!), and maybe see if some of the links aren't already filled? I can't see anyone else suited for this (yes, several master the info, but only you master the info and English and logic in using the wiki format; plus, you also have the persuasive power were those guys need extra coaching on what "the point" is). Btw, I really think the articles should be structured around the office ("Bishop", "Metropolitan"), and certainly not duplicated for office and institution - but we currently have a mess (even those that refer to institution fluctuate nonchalantly between "Metropolis", "Metropolitan bishopric" and other variants). Dahn (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. For the dioceses: sure, I'll bend to whatever convention, as long as we follow one. The template I hadn't picked up from your edits - but now that I see it, I consider myself satisfied as far as standardizing the links. Elena: congrats - it's very informative, and, yes, fair. Even if I think people really are meaner to her than required or desirable, her career is a prolonged scandal - meaning that your text neutrally reflects a reality where gossipy stuff is the norm, and where she doesn't seem to mind very much. In fact, you might have missed that one bit about her using a mop. I'll go as far as to say that the article is more professional than she is - which is unfair not to her, but, if anything, to those better-qualified Romanian public figures whose articles are shooting practice for monomaniacal editors and IPs. In any case, and since I didn't get to answer your query the first time around: yes, I'm all for having articles on all those people (of whom Udrea is one). If they look like this one, bring them on! Dahn (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing about the hook is that it relies on two items which are up for merger (I tend to favor that merger - it would spare us the headache of visiting every single article). How about the "President of Norway" thing? That's bound to raise some interest, and there are many other sources to back it up, if needed (though nothing in a foreign language). Btw, the show was Robert Turcescu's on Realitatea - he strikes me as one of those throbbing redlinks, so maybe you could consider adding it to the Udrea article (the other day, I was trying to write an article on Istodor - still among my wordpads to pick up -, so maybe Turcescu's article is not that far off... and we... erm I... I linked him here).

... and presumably by kids born in the '90s ;). Dahn (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem - glad to have helped. And the other thing... it's been so long since I took a look at those articles... but I'll get there eventually, if nothing is done in the meantime. Sssslllooooooowwwly but surely... Dahn (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this Stalinist jargon: "Oh yes, there is a noted acuteness to the class struggles in those countries, and the conditions are ripe for a passage to the next mode of production - it looks like they could benefit from the experience of its Soviet brothers. Now, we are not an insurrectionist country, and we have always advanced peace in our relations with the capitalist world, but we feel now confident enough to progress on the front of building socialism in other countries. But this goal is best achieved by the creation of popular fronts: some time should pass between the initial call of to revolution, leaving the genuine workers time to purge their own ranks of wreckers and constructing a partnership with the progressive bourgeois parties before assistance from our workers' state is provided. Otherwise, the enemies of socialism in one country blah-blah-blah... There were, after all, examples were the workers' movement was set back twenty years because of bad timing, provocation and over-eagerness, and there have been voices trying to insinuate that the workers' state and the international workers' movement are not walking side by side on the path of socialism, but rather accomplices in an imperialist plot. Let the sister parties first gather some more support from the working people and the enlightened bourgeoisie in their respective countries." Dahn (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Serial killer infobox template

Hello, Template:Infobox Serial Killer is used in numerous Wikipedia articles; therefore, please propose major changes on the talk page before making them. Thank you, momoricks (make my day) 03:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. If jurisdiction, province or other parameters need to be added to the template, I'll support it. The state parameter only appears when it is filled in. If it doesn't apply to the article, it can be left blank. momoricks (make my day) 05:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I've included you in a post at WP:ANI. --Yano (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian diaspora

Salut, daca poti sa verifici aceasta pagina pentru ca eu personal cred ca este "vandalizata" de catra un Ungur. Ma rog, daia te intreg pentru ca esti neutru. Daca poti te rog sa te uiti si peste discussion page putin. Idea este ca Ungurul vrea sa pune ca Unguri sunt bastinasi in Transilvania si Moldova. Mersi iadrian (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Parker controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, David Parker controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Parker controversy. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Elena Udrea

Hello! Your submission of Elena Udrea at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Elena Udrea

You're welcome, mate, keep up the good work :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New section (the other one is getting too big)

Biru, I'm looking into some other issue (as you may know by now), and I performed a random query which had something to do with Capital punishment in Romania. I was looking at the same reference, and it would appear that, where you cite Hodgkinson et al (the editors), the author is actually one Stanislaw Frankowski (with a chapter titled "Post-Communist Europe"). At least for most of the notes (I haven't checked them). I'm also a bit concerned about ref 7, which doesn't verify the text per se (no Panet etc.), and partly contradicts it. I know, what the ref says does read like an overstatement, but perhaps you could do the following: split the phrase into two parts (executions used in political repressions/Panet et al), and use the ref only for the former (in case you agree to this order). You could also ignore the qualifier "great" in the original (it's imprecise either way), and just cite that capital punishment had use in political repressions. The issue of how the others were imprisoned is complicated enough - yes, most were imprisoned, but about half of them were sent to what was in effect a slower death. If you think the article should elaborate on this, we can then both start expanding the "heres and theres". With what I'm working on currently, they should be easy to pick up "ready-made". Dahn (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. Well, I performed some adjustments, and hope you're okay with them. Later today, I'll start something on the Antonescu sandbox (-and please, please contribute to it if you feel the urge); it'll summarize his participation in this from all notable perspectives, and I'll afterward start summarizing the summary (or its relevant bit) wherever they are needed. Capital punishment is on that list, but I'm prioritizing the Antonescu article for now - as Bogdan said, it's about time someone did it. Dahn (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete/merge as spam and POV forks (not to mention ungrammatical). Consider letting an admin in, because this carries the risk of getting out of hand. You can count on my vote, if you plan to start this yourself. Dahn (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Look what I found. Yay. Dahn (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to visit both Sima and Mihai sometime in the future - remember my old proposal about sandboxing a king? But I am gonna need some kind of break from this area after Antonescu.

About Mosora: is she notable-notable? I have my doubts, so that would make it an AfD. In any case, the solution is to stubify [I'll avoid doing that, at least for now, because the user's "persecution" sense is likely to be tingling; but I'll rock any vote ;).] Dahn (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

With due apologies (these past days, I tended to focus on the issues that make for a vein throb, though I know I shouldn't). I'll answer in the order you posted them:

• I'll get back to you on the communes left (off hand, I'd say "no, not really" or "your guess is as good as mine"). Mihai will do fine, only I really want to fill some red links after I finish Antonescu (some things we do out of passion, others out of duty).
• Crin could indeed do with a revamp (as much as his agenda and personality revolt me). Speaking of the "other one", do you suppose that we'd have to rethink our redirects if he ever gets elected president (which I for one hope he won't)?
• You are absolutely right about the "ethnic flag" article - it should either be rewritten or deleted, though I would picture a disgruntled backlash over it (like Latin Europe, it's that kind of "toy article" which editors enjoy playing with in the absence of thorough and well-meaning copyediting). Incidentally, I would picture the only such flag one could approximate for Romanians is the horizontal tricolor paraded around at Alba Iulia (there is also some marginal info on blue white-red-tricolors used by Transylvanian Romanians in 1848). Speaking of the Székely flag: I was under the impression that they were using a "Sun and Moon" variant; I first saw this one on TV, during the celebrations of earlier this month, and was rather amused that it stood by a UDMR flag - a 'round-the-clock electoral campaign. But who is the unsung hero who produces these flags? And, btw, given that one is presumed and presumed alive, wouldn't the copyright status of the picture need a thorough check? I don't want to be the one breaking the news to our fellow Hungarian editors... And I also take issue with the Moldovan flag being used to represent Romanians - it certainly wasn't intended as such, no matter what perspective editors take on the matter (meaning it may as well be used to designate "Moldovans" as opposed to Romanians, but probably represents nothing other than the country). The whole layout is crappy, and I wonder if the article itself has some conceivable end - could it ever group all ethnic flags as used in history; and, if it doesn't aim to, why does it try to provide a list/gallery?
• Ha! The funniest thing (granted, I couldn't sit through the whole flick) is that these guys are even more eccentric than the bunch who visit with Nick Ceau (or, to build on the hype: the place where Nick Ceau is supposedly buried <_<). It's so amusing to think of how they must take pride in being "all that", and "in with it before it was cool": while Ceauşescu gets his share of fools with a "low ideological level", who mainly remember the "perks", these guys make a life commitment. And this happens as even some of the least literate Ceauşescu supporters remember that their idol contrasted himself with Dej for being "humane" - so what sort of problems must one have to worship Dej, or both? About the "relations" article - also notice this (incidentally, it brushes on an old topic of discussion). It does have some (mildly) notable things at is core, but does that entail it makes the cut? I mean, can the info be structured otherwise? Because it looks damn stupid having an article on Romania's relationship with just one African country. In any case, it would require serious copyedits if kept. Dahn (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I get back to you on the other issues, I noticed something which may be right up your alley, and which relates to something we discussed a long, long time ago. I edited the template, mostly based on this (not a great source, but the info checks out piece by piece in others). If you want to, maybe you could consider disseminating the template and the info where needed. Perhaps the regents should also be mentioned? Dahn (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. One minor point, though: I removed the italics from Conducător because they may be confusing (they denote interim in that template), and because there aren't any on Domnitor. Still, I'm not sure if these are real problems (and if my approach is a real solution). Either way is fine by me. Dahn (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are some serious problems with both Watts and Treptow - they have both been known as apologists, and the latter poses an unusual problem for having used his time in Romania to... well, you know. Selecting what is and isn't controversial about that is bound to be harder than just letting other sources do it (Deletant for example does a pretty fine job of that). For the rest: Ima coming! Dahn (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "still"? Was he actually lying there alive before 1938?

I have to say a Romania ruled by Averescu instead of Antonescu would make for interesting alternate history: what would have happened differently? I can only presume things would have been much more Vichy-esque, Horthyesque, or maybe even Mussolinian, and the Legionaries could have stepped in as the Arrow Crosses... If the latter is true, the Romani people would probably have been left unscathed, but I can also picture a full-blown application of the Shoah. Dahn (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are all good threads (I'm enchanted by the last one, but, alas, there was also a Sima in the picture). Let me add: Carol accepts Horthy's proposal for a personal union. There's some indication that Antonescu really wasn't that popular in the army, which was very much infiltrated by the Guard. But, either way, Sănătescu did not need much popularity in similar circmstance (which may or may not prove something or the other for Antonescu). Btw, do you suppose anyone in the democratic opposition opted for CS or Rădescu in the belief that the 1940-41 scenario would work with the PCR for the Guard?

On the older issue (as you addressed them to me):

1. Let's hope that's the end of that.

2. I agree. Did you try telling Raul?

3. Oh, for sure, Ică is down there with Teo. Second division, that is.

4. Let's collect them for now. But, hey, did you know?

5. The very way in which the info is structured gets on my nerves. But if they can stand it, why not come up with an MoS-like ruling, that would codify how WP:N applies in this case? "It is notable when..." - more than just having embassies and blowing kisses. I think "sharing membership in an international body other than the UN family", "having x type of partnership, covered by a significant number of reliable third-party sources"... stuff like that. Dahn (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm... Dahn (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lemme just answer you last for now: in its current form, and given that those people are not citizens, yes. Dahn (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter, Biru.

For now, lemme just say: the article needs to go, and not just because of the picture. I amused myself a bit, and then I amused myself evn more when I read "In calitate de sluga a lui Iliescu a primit multe beneficii sedii (Sala Dalles) si a participat la multe sindrofii securisto-comuniste. A fost coleg de altfel cu Iliescu la Moscova, fiind buni tovarasi de si kgb." Who are these gentlemen, and why can't they crawl back to the hut that bore them?! Dahn (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Elena Udrea

On March 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elena Udrea, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I just need to talk to you about the Canada-Moldova relations page. First of all, just because there is no embassies does not mean there cannot be relations. Like for example, I created a page Russia-Trinidad relations. Russia does not have an embassy in Trinidad but however maintains economic cooperation with it. Second, their might be little amount of money, but their is cooperation in the organizations. Please take some time to understand. Thanks. Russian Luxembourger (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Well, now it makes more sence of clearness. By the way, who is that person who created this article. I remember you said that he was "thankfully blocked". What did he do before? Russian Luxembourger (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are they completly banned from Wikipedia? Russian Luxembourger (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

co-nom

Hi Biruitorul, Can you add your name as a co-nominator over at [Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#March 29]]? I hadn't realized they wouldn't count the point for you if you didn't nominate it. Cheers, - BanyanTree 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hancock Manor

He finally posted something on his talk page, threatening to "revert forever" if he had to. I followed up with a strongly-worded warning about why he shouldn't do this and what could happen if he did.

Feel free to report him to WP:ANEW if he keeps this up. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not say "revert forever". That is a misquote. There has got to be an agreeable compromise. The term "kept" implies that the slaves were contained on the property. If you refer to Abram Brown's book about John Hancock, you will see how the slaves were sent out to the Common to milk the cows to help feed the French troops who were dining with the Hancocks. The Common mentioned is Boston Common which was owned by the town (now city) of Boston. At that time any cow on the Common was fair game for the milking. This tract of land was not owned by the Hancocks. By the very fact that the slaves were there meant that they were off the Hancock property. This very notion debunks the "kept" theory.

Peter Martin

I just wanted to be clear that I like Peter Martin and I find his book better than what the review gave him credit. It just came out -after- the original Johnson article was created and most of the stuff was redundant. I will be using him on individual works along with the others. It is nice to see that someone put enough effort to realize that Johnson had some recent biographies (and not the crappy one that came out during the same time). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayle Edlund Wilson

I closed this discussion as "keep" only because nobody besides you was saying "delete". It had been relisted but I saw no point in leaving it open so another half dozen editors can say "keep". However, I agree with you and the editor arguing for "merge". The article as it stands needs a complete rewrite. The last line reads and she is blessed with two terrific daughters-in-law and five grandchildren. This is not something I expect to see in any WP article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"No"??

Please let me know why you are reverting the "Related information" headings. (And, for future reference, please read wp:REVEXP.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania (Spring 1944)

Hi Biru, I've just started creating a series of articles regarding these "forgotten" military operation, designated as the First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive. They were deliberately ignored by Soviet archives/historiography as it represented a strategic failure for Stavka 's intentions to propagate Stalin's military and political influence in the Balkans. As this was almost completely ignored by sources until now, David M. Glantz came up in 2007 with an extraordinary book dedicated to this subject. Until know I've been concentrating on the First Battle of Târgu Frumos (which is currently under A-class review - some copyediting would be more than welcome) and the Battle of Podu Iloaiei. Any help would be welcome! Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My, we sure turn them up like there's no tomorrow, and we immediately put them up for A-class review for the interlocking self-feeding mechanism to assess. Never mind that they're all based on one source, as "wonderful" as that source is, and that they're not just just ignored by Soviet historiography (but by historiography in general, unless as footnotes) - which brings up WP:CFORK. But what about the practical concerns, the lack of consensus? How does the acclaimed and experienced project coordinator deal with those? I'm basically incommunicado with Eurocopter, but he may want to read this message I posted and reflect on it. Dahn (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User: Vicente Calibo de Jesus Articles

I wanted to let you know that, I did improve a number of articles by User talk:Vicente Calibo de Jesus. (Articles: Francisco Combés, Enrique of Malacca, Carlo Amoretti, First mass in the Philippines and Mazaua) Thay still have improper refs. All of his Articles need to be rewritten from scratch. Talk to you later.--Michael (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See Here for more info on this.--Michael (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

George Nicolescu

Thanks for helping out there, but the reason I had abandoned the translation was (as I discussed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English) that it looked like a borderline copyvio/plagiarism, cribbed from http://rpsu.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html, and that some of the few differences looked like uncited changes of facts: e.g. the blog says "fiind singurul baiat intr-o familie normala, cu 5 copii", but what was dumped into the wiki said "într-o familie cu 5 fraţi"! Akerbeltz suggested that we reduce it to a stub stating "his profession, DoB and perhaps a couple of the most salient facts." At the very least it deserves an "unreferenced" tag (and a "fact" tag on the "5 brothers"). I'll add those. If you are interested in taking it on, or can think of someone who would, great; if not at least I'll have slapped a warning sign on it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What you just did is fine. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population

Hi,

Thank you for adding some style to the list. It really works out well and provides valuable information to the reader. It is such an elegant solution.

Ghaag (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with the Romania articles that I've created. Do you think that we could discuss any future page moves first before they happen so that we know that the page moves are correct? Thanks, Razorflame 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was merely referring to the page moves that you were making. Anyways, it isn't that big of a deal anymore. Cheers, Razorflame 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Page moves, some involving diacritics

Hi. I'm just dropping off a link to [[33]], a page where, about a year ago, I started analyzing all the Move Requests that I've helped close. It's not a random sample, and it's slightly out-of-date, but you might find it interesting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you contribution to Edmonton i have been working very hard to get it up to GA and finally did now i plan to keep it there. Thanks Cheers Kyle1278 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Moldova–South Korea relations

An article that you have been involved in editing, Moldova–South Korea relations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldova–South Korea relations. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You recent changes to the George Călinescu article

You have recently deleted a large part of info from the George Călinescu article. Is there a good reason for this? Kenshin (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the previous version was quite messy, but I think that is more important to have good info than to have a good style, don't you think? Kenshin (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

Hi, Biruitorul! I made here a proposal for renaming. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hainan Island Incident

Oops, looks like we edit conflicted doing pretty much the same thing. You did {{cite news}}, I did {{cite web}}, do you have a preference? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for fixing the formatting there. --John (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

I've been noticing all the hard work you do around the wiki, especially dealing with the bilateral relations articles. I think you would make a great administrator, and I am willing to put forth a nomination for you if you accept. Tavix |  Talk  20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Moldovan People

Decided again for its independence in tonight's elections. It proves once more that, despite large sums invested by the Romanian government in supporting "pro-Unionist" parties and diversions prepared by Romanian citizens, it doesn't believe in Romanian propaganda. Have a nice editing day.Xasha (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHA! You're so ashamed of your own opinions that you are afraid to expose them publicly (No, I won't publish your e-mails unless you allow me to). Poor guy. I prefer Romanians like Olahus. At least they practice what they preach (OK, their opinions won't get them fines in most EU countries, like yours, but still). I'll leave you to editing, probably your only happiness in the world full of conspiracies you're living in.Xasha (talk)

Oh come now, Xasha, your simplistic portrayal belies that (yet again) you're blinded by the glittering baubly appeal of your own POV (yet again) mistaken for brilliance. PetersV       TALK 03:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting if you aren't aware of the content of the e-mails Biruitorul sent to me.Xasha (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Xasha, the voting results are corrupted, as well as the census results from 2004. Moldova is not a free country, at least not for the majority its citizens. --Olahus (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll chose to believe responsible international organizations over Romanian media of dubious qulity. It's important to notice the difference between protests by peaceful demonstrators after elections considered unfree by the West (like the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine or the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia) and the intensive violence by groups which seems to attempt a coup, following the Moldovan elections, considered overall free by foreign observers.Xasha (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A coup is the right answer. Propel Chirtoacă to the Presidency, proclaim Union, send Romanian troops across the Prut, and be done once and for all with the farcical Moldovan "state". What should have happened in August 1991 at the latest is finally unfolding. "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep dreaming.Xasha (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

@Xasha: how many electoral circumscritions have been supervized by OSCE? 10? 20? 50? How many electoral circumscritions are in Moldova? 500? 1000? 2000? And how can you be so sure about the correctness of the report? How can you say that the voting was ok as long as mental ill persons as well as the deceased persons have voted ??? And how you can you imagine that the formation of opinion between the citizens is possible in a country like Moldova as long as the Romanian TV-channels are almost entirely forbidden while the Russian ones are completely free? --Olahus (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The US Department of State, the EU Presidency and the OSCE can't be all wrong. Really, I (and most real people) don't care about what Mrs. Nicholson "feels", we care about proofs, and as she clearly said they are none. Ziua is a noted nationalist newspaper, so has no importance. As for the accusations in Cotidianul, it's not impossible. Small scale fraud always happens. I remember that in 2004 all the Romanian media talked about "electoral turism": a large number of buses filled with people cruised around Romania, voting in every village the group passed through. Oh, and again you prove you don't knwo a thing about life in Moldova. In Moldova you can watch almost all Romanian channels (while in Romania you can only watch less than a hour of Moldovan television very early in the morning on the TVR2 - or that's how things were a year ago, the Moldovan programme may have been eliminated by now)Xasha (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting the name of Lacatus and for other corrections on the pages of Romanian gymnasts! Multumesc frumos!!! Lulubon (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

Tahnx. I've enabled it. You can write to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

independence?

i see you oppose independence of kosovo. do you oppose independence of south ossetia and abkhazia as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.146.53 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Axelrod dab

I reverted you at the Axelrod dab since you gave no reason for removing the name, and, red-links can be found on dabs for surnames if the person does not yet have an article, but might at some point, as in this case. My neighbor Suzie Axelrod will not be added to the page, however. --KP Botany (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, your search indicates that he has some notability. Alphabetize, don't remove. --KP Botany (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Argue that when I write the article. Right now, you've admitted you deleted because you were irritated it wasn't alphabetized. That's really enough discussion. --KP Botany (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll post a reminder to drop a line here on my user page. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Weber

Nice to see you're still here. :) Concerning Renate Weber, she never caught my attention, and I did not dig into her past. But if you're willing to point me to interesting sources, I'm willing to read. :) Dpotop (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Qvidproqvo

Many thanks for the editorial assistance.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qvidproqvo (talk • contribs) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Qvidproqvo Follow-up

I'd received an earlier message from someone (presumably another editor) stating that internal references were preferable - which seemed counterintuitive - and, thus, added the slew of Wiki refs which you subsequently deleted.

Thanks for clarification/initiative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qvidproqvo (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Iurie Rosca

Sorry, I'm busy in my real life, so I don't have much time to edit. However, take a look at these:

• [34]
• [35]

The press release of PPCD is in one of the purest soviet styles I saw in the last years. No wonder PPCD.md is what it is (it's even worse than the Romanian one, which is difficult). Dpotop (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your AE request

You need to add the notification diff, or the request may be ignored.  Sandstein  20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Canada–Kazakhstan relations

Here is an Afd you might like to check out, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Kazakhstan relations. I know we normally don't see eye to eye and even in this Afd we might not vut I thought due to our common interests in the x-y articles you might want to take a look. cheers -Marcusmax(speak) 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly also check out Australia–Uruguay relations again, Me and Drmies have put alot more work into this one. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Philippine fathers

I can't understand why we should have this list. The monikers of being the father of something should be added (and cited) in the person's own wiki article. This article is like lumping the Father of Bebop and the Father of the Internet in a list called "American Fathers" because they happened to be called fathers and they're both Americans.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's on afd now.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Biruitorul/Archive4's Day!

User:Biruitorul/Archive4 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Biruitorul/Archive4's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Biruitorul/Archive4! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Madrid

Well, you said you are not going to examine all external links to determine if they are spam or not... yet you deleted some. How did you do that then? based on... descriptions? what? May be you should delete things when you know something about that particular topic. Don't worry, I have done the work properly. Just remind you that you deleted some important complementary information from these sources: Madrid regional Council website and Spain's Ministry of Culture tourism website. Very spam-like, yeah. Cheers! David (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed! Cheers! David (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Biruitorul)

Hello, Biruitorul. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biruitorul, where you may want to participate. Timlight (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Romania relations

Hey, I'm sorry I read your response in an unfriendly way--I know you didn't mean it like that, and I said so on the AfD page. My apologies, Drmies (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biruitorul

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biruitorul, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biruitorul and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biruitorul during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Timlight (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Getty program

Hi there, nice to hear from you...I started a thread here: [36] to get more opinions. They seem marginal to me, sort of useless..Modernist (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deletion request

It's not a duplicate, per se, so it'll likely have to go through its own AfD. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Zsolt Luka article

Thank you for your help cleaning up the Zsolt Luka article, much appreciated. Goplett (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to e-mail

• I've wondered about that myself; I don't mind sending an e-mail to ask whether he's decided to make a slight change his user name (on the contribution lists, it looks like one's last contribution was on April 17, and the other's first contribution was a few hours later on the same day). I agree with you that we shouldn't jump to conclusions, although it is kind of odd. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Vietnam relations

I know there's not a lot to go on here, which is why I could only muster a weak keep. I appreciate the tone of your no-vote, and I think it's due in large part to you that these AfD discussions are a lot more civil than they were a week ago. If only some of the other editors (on both sides) could comment a bit more on the reasons for their opinion! thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Awarded to Biruitorul for his efforts in promoting civility and world peace especially in the area of so-called "X-Y relations." Drmies (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why haven't I gotten one of these? I guess Drmies never heard of "peace through superior firepower". So sheltered in the Netherlands and the deep south, so sheltered... Congrats Bit. Keep up the good work! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, CoM, Biruitorul is handing me stubs to turn into full-fledged DYKs! If they are kept, of course. ;) Drmies (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Followup

• I got a reply back (on my talk page) from D and the Fox is not the same person; D can't explain it either. As you noted, he's been here a long time. I can't think of any innocent reasons that someone would want to get a screen name that sounds like another person. If someone suddenly started signing in as "Mandford" or "Birutol", I'd wonder what their motive was. Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's likely that you're right. That account, which has sockpuppet written all over it, popped up out of nowhere in late March and then got blocked a couple of days before the Fox suddenly showed up. You gotta wonder when someone goes to the AfD Forum on their first day (in T's account, the first edit). Genuinely new editors tend to find out about Articles for Deletion the hard way. It's usually a rude awakening, but that's where most of us subsequently learn the policies. I'll keep an eye on the "fox'. Mandsford (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello i understand you putting the article Albania–Canada relations up for deletion. I did not think it would last long from when i created it. So i put {{db-self}} and had it deleted but the main reason i am here is because you did not notify me about it, all i am asking is pleas notify the person if you put a PROD or AFD. Thank you--Cheers Kyle1278 03:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem no harm done. Cheers Kyle1278 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 23#Jorge Ferreira wkpd2.jpg

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 23#Jorge Ferreira wkpd2.jpg. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

UGH!

I've started undoing all those. This is ridiculous. Multiple sections, all with opposition to the idea, and he won't drop it. May be time to seek sanctions. Make sure he knows about the Village Pump thread, though. ThuranX (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo–Malaysia relations

Although we are on exactly opposite philosophical sides of the debate on bilateral relations articles, I would like you to reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo–Malaysia relations. You will find that I have expanded the article greatly, and I believe that it will now satisfy your requirements. Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template:Foreign relations of Ethiopia

I am disappointed with your edits to this template. First, these redlinks are proposed articles, which is based on my knowledge of Ethiopian history, both diplomatic & foreign. All of the redlinks I created in this template have some basis in actual events. (For example, have a look at Ethiopian Air Force to see how important Ethiopia's relationship with Sweden was. And then there is a long history of missionary ties, education, foreign aid, & many other contacts; one of my most important online sources is the Nordic African Institute, located in Uppsala, Sweden.)

Second, while I might be wrong about suggesting a few of these topics, removing them is a matter of discussing content, not a fallacious idea that "no one will ever write an article on them". I have been spending the last few weeks improving the woredas of Ethiopia -- most of which have been stubs for the last 2-3 years -- into respectable articles. (Have a look, for example, at Alamata (woreda) or Gode (woreda).) After years of patient research -- as well as repeated surprises -- I have come to learn not dismiss any stub out of hand as doomed to never being developed into a fully-detailed article.

Then there is the fact that creating redlinks helps to build the web -- to encourage other Wikipedians to create more content. Wikipedia is, in no sense, complete or exhaustive; we have only harvested the windfalls & the low-hanging fruit. Your desire to remove every article of the form "X-Y relationship" is close to a dangerous obsession -- an obsession reminiscent of the one BetaCommand had -- & at best causes good articles to be wrongly deleted, & at worse might get you banned as it did BetaCommand.

And lastly, even if no one creates these articles -- what harm is it to have redlinks in a template that is used in (so far) a dozen articles? I am unaware that you have shown any interest in Ethiopian subjects before you started editting this template earlier today. Or do you plan on reviewing every one of the articles I have worked on & removing all of the redlinks I have created? -- llywrch (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch, while the very existence of similar articles is being debated, you may want to stop proliferating the links. In any case, arbitrarily replacing a bluelink to a country with a redlink to an article you strongly feel is needed is highly questionable, and amounts to disruption. I'm saying this not just because you artificially create a "need" for articles of dubious quality, but also because you remove the valid link to the country and replace it with an Easter egg. Dahn (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw, if I may: in the above message, you refer to Biruitorul as having an obsession, and falsely accuse him of wanting to remove all articles on relations (when he never seems to have indicated that, when he has been following transparent procedures, and when I for one did argue in favor of removing all such articles but did not act upon this wish). If we have to resort to this kind of accusation, be aware that one could play the obsession card when it comes to your "need" of seeing these articles proliferating. But whatever. In any case, the willy-nilly comparison with a banned user and the implied threat aimed at an outstanding contributor, who has not yet broken any rule, are exceptionable and irrational. Dahn (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Biruitorul. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic missions in Abkhazia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Russavia ^Dialogue 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

List of foreign football players in Serbia

Hi,Welcome. I see you´ve already made a cool change in my list. I´m working on it all night and I´m finishing it for now with the montenegrin players. Do you like this kind of lists? I will greatfully accept all advice that you can give. I already have the help of the guys that made tha italian,english,spanish and french lists. My user talk is much shorter. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfDs on bilateral

thanks for adding that note. the user is going around adding a similar message to Marting. this user even added the same standard text to an AfD for an embassy!

Despre tigani (romi, daca vrei, desi e un neologism)

Uite un articol amuzant, si e amuzant mai ales documentul UE atasat care poate fi foarte usor folosit ca sursa pe Wiki. Eu nu mai am timp sa editez, si probabil ca va dura ceva situatia asta. Poate insa te intereseaza pe tine. :) Dpotop (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hungary–Kyrgyzstan relations

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Hungary–Kyrgyzstan relations, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Paraguay relations

True, but even so, there was no consensus to delete. The argument to wait until the centralized discussion finishes is a valid one, in my opinion. Moreover, arguments like "random" or "we don't need these" don't hold much weight. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah....

Oops...thanks for catching that. Renaissancee (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on me

An admin is not happy with my wording in editing, since you have seen most of my AfDs feel free to comment Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:LibStar. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Hey B, why remove the "other" category from those Shakespearean women? They're still Shakespearean characters, and need to be categorized as such, in my opinion--the finer comb of "Female characters in Shakespeare" does not render the other category obsolete. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Aha! Thanks for the lesson! Good stuff. It's a pleasure working with you. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

ZK_Framework

Please take another look at the DRV. DRV is not only to determine whether the original AFD was interpreted correctly but also to change such decision if new information comes to light. For the old AFD to hold (which includes votes that say no reliable sources exist), you'd need to disprove the reliability of the sources the DRV nominator listed. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The bilateral relations topic class

As one Christian to another please can I ask you to pray to see if purging this class of articles is really a good thing? I cant believe they're being dismissed as trivia! Some relationships may be minor relative to others, but they are all part of the framework of international cooperation which ultimately determines whether the world becomes more or less prosperous, more or less peaceful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion list

As a member of the Bilateral relations task force, you maybe interested in this new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion Ikip (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Algeria–Holy See relations

I stumbled across this class of article recently, and enjoy trying to expand them. Thanks for feeding them into AfD. They take a bit longer than a crossword puzzle, and then the debate happens. Some are lost causes. Estonia-Mongolia was not meant to survive. I am not sure we really disagree too much on principle. Glad to see your improvements on this one. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any perfect solution to the question of organizing content. In the past, I have done some fairly bold merging of semi-trivial articles into omnibus ones like Landmarks in Buenos Aires or List of captive orcas. The problem with the bi-lateral relations articles is they fall between the two countries. Categories work well here, because an article on Hungary/Sri Lanka relations can be in both Category:Bilateral relations of Sri Lanka and Category:Bilateral relations of Hungary, with no duplication or forking. The problem with categories is that they do not show up in a Wikipedia search - but they do show up in a Google search, which is how most people would find them. The real question is how intense the relations between two countries have to be to justify an article. I don't see any rules-based way of deciding. I am inclined to be inclusionist. Disk space is cheap, so as long as an article is reasonably neutral, sourced, covers all major aspects etc. I see no harm and some benefit. Don't think it is a question of principle, just emphasis. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Petite Entente

Bonjour ! J'ai bien noté votre remarque et déposé une demande en ce sens à l'Atelier graphique ici. Merci d'avoir remarqué cette erreur :) Meneldur 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.200.150.219 (talk)

comment on deleted article

you may want to comment here User_talk:X!#Colombia.E2.80.93Croatia_relations the admin closed this as keep on the basis of not wanting to disrupt the current discussions on developing a guideline. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, Biruitorul, and welcome to WikiProject Bilateral relations! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the relations between two countries. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project. Ikip (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. Ikip (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For excellent work on bilateral relations articles, including working on deleting those which are not appropriate. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan–Romania relations

Given that you speak Romanian, could you do a search in Romanian on anything for this relation? I suspect it is not notable and should be deleted. thanks LibStar (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks, you don't mind if I use your answer as part of the AfD. it's very compelling. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico–Romania relations

how about this one? LibStar (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Meteş

A tag has been placed on Meteş, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WebHamster 11:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Projects

Is there any particular reason you dont put in project Afd notifications? SatuSuro 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Ireland relations

I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan–Romania relations

As a Romanian speaker, could you do a search on this? thanks. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I really needed to take a short break, and then stuff piled up in RL. I must apologize not just for this, but also because it may still take me a while to adjust. I hope I didn't exhaust your patience, and I promise to get back with answers on the long list of things. In the meantime, I will be reasonably prompt in contributing my 2 cents to the urgent stuff (especially since I note that the "bilateral relations" thing has (predictably) turned into attrition). So, if anything in particular could use my input, please feel free to point it out on my talk page. Dahn (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lest I forget: thank you for your decisive input on several pages (I just had a look over my backlog). Dahn (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful, and badly needed. I hope my edits didn't mess anything up: I was editing an old version and was taking forever, so please compare the two versions to see if I lost anything from what you added since. I also hope you like the tidbit I added, and that you can help me with this minor dilemma: what Mitchievici uses is the word bişniţă; like sanchi and trening and the like, this is Romglish "patois", which makes it funny to translate "back" into English. The term of choice for this seems to be "funny business" - but that reads more judgmental than the Romanian, I do believe. I don't believe that Mitchievici is necessarily implying that Berceanu was a con artist. He could just as well be saying that Berceanu was an inoffensive şmecher. Do you know a term that would better convey this lexical ambiguity? Dahn (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yes. But do those reflect that the focus is on actual business? I gather that Mitchievici means RB was going around the Bloc buying and reselling this and that - much of which was technically illegal, but only in a state like Communist Romania. I've spent some more time looking around, and I think it should be something like "grey transactions". Is there a more convenient term for that? Dahn (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, I know an exemplary Orthodox such as yourself would never put his faith in reincarnation. Not even in such an obvious case :D. Dahn (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I really should check my mail more often (in my defense, I was way off-off-line in the last week). Remember that 2nd of May message? You were and are absolutely right, and I see it's only getting worse. I'm gonna try and make this and more into an e-mail reply one of these days. (I realize how frustrating these pauses must be, and I assure you that, if I could reduce them, I would.) Dahn (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

this is me still being a prima donna :). I'm on very limited time at the moment (still), but I really do want to tie it up where we left - the only thing is that I'm not sure if I'd be in a position to follow up on those issues as is needed. It's also that I'm dedicating my time to yet another huge article (one we've talked about in the past), since its present equivalent is an eyesore. Once I'll get some structure into the info I'm adding there bit by bit, you'll get to see it in my sandbox, and by then hopefully I'll be back with the promised stuff. Dahn (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the "500,000 Pentecostals" citation (I forgot all about that when I edited the article): I do see your point, but I can see several ways of handling this issue. For one, I don't know if the source is or isn't RS - based on my prima facie of its credentials, it might be more so than Creştinul for these matters, but then again it might not. If it's worth keeping in the text, I would suggest turning the estimates thing into a paragraph of prose, especially since the source refrains from citing the number as a fact, but rather indicates it is a rather isolated opinion ("If we follow Schmidgall, ..."). Using a similar phrasing, and listing all estimates and numbers alongside the various counterarguments that may exist (including those for 1992 results), would probably be the best solution - prose gives the chance of attributing, tables give the chance of disputes. Dahn (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Discouraged Workers

I am currently rewriting discouraged workers at User:Smallman12q/articles/discouraged worker so the mainspace article isn't really presentable atm. You stated that amazon links are discouraged and I wanted to know why?(I am not including any refferer or other affiliate tag). I have often added an amazon or B&N link to books when citing them. Is this inappropriate?Smallman12q (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I ussually use the {{cite book}} template which has a seperate place for ISBNS and urls. If amazon, and B&N and other links are frowned upon, then perhaps something should be added to the template documentation.Smallman12q (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Biruitorul. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Biruitorul. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations

Hi, Stifle. Could I please ask you to have a closer look at this discussion? Clearly, there was no consensus to delete Bosnia-Romania relations. However, I also nominated Malta-Romania and Phillipines-Romania, and not the slightest attempt was made at defending those (except for one, by Petri Krohn). No one voted "keep all" and, as far as can be divined, the "keep" votes referred just to Bosnia-Romania. It does seem, then, that there was a consensus to delete the other two, no? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Two users suggested keeping one and deleting the other two, but I don't think there was a strong enough consensus to delete them. I'll annotate the result though. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Romania–Syria relations

could you do a search in Romanian, thanks. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

I support your recent renomination, but they need to be marked as 2nd nominations. see instructions at Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. thanks. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nation-nation relations abominations

• I left a comment on LibStar's page and I could probably cut and paste it over here, but suffice to say I appreciate the good words-- as for these articles, keep nominating 'em. Mandsford (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Solution? and leave a comment. It is worth thinking of a compromise, and this seems reasonable to me. Maybe the information is not all that interesting, but at least it is all in one place, not in a whole lot of stubs. It strikes me that if user:Groubani had made table-type articles like this, they would not have gone to AfD and everyone would have saved a lot of effort. Anyway, leave a comment on the discussion. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• See User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Bilaterals_et_al for the way I am thinking. I am not so much concerned about preserving the rather trivial content in these stubs, more concerned about the longer-term impact of deleting them. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Referitor la modificarile tale de la pagina Romanian Orthodox Church

Biserica a fost ridicata la rang de patriarhie in 1925, dar ea exista de pe vremea Apostolului Andrei. Defapt cum am scris eu este specific si celorlalte articole referitoare la bis ortodoxe. Spre exemplu aici: Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania Fondarea e apostolica, iar recunoasterea e din anul 1922. La fel si Bis. Rusa. Vezi articolele respective. Una este recunoasterea independentei/autocefaliei, si alta este fondarea ei, aparitia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Otro (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tot in acest fel este scris si la articolul Russian Orthodox Church El Otro (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Poza de la articolul Incorruptibility

De ce ai sters poza aceastaFile:Father Ilie Lăcătuşu.jpg din articol? Nu vad de ce o sa fie stearsa.

your thoughts

on this discussion Talk:Switzerland–Uruguay relations LibStar (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Radu Berceanu

On May 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Radu Berceanu, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Greater Romania

Romania - the way it should be

I saw this image on your userpage. I found a video, I think you will like it. It is in Hungarian, but with english subtitles. [37] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander1920 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Orban

Nu ai pentru ce, încerc sǎ ajut ṣi eu cum pot. Dar de ce ai postat un mesaj în limba românǎ pe pagina mea din limba englezǎ? --AdySarbus (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI you raised

Please note that someone tried to rename your ANI thread [38] LibStar (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

John Singleton Copley

Sorry about the repeated false correction of typos on John Singleton Copley. I marked these with a {{sic}} template so hopefully it won't happen again. Best Regards. Symplectic Map (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Portugal–Romania relations

another groubani fine production...could you do a Romanian search. thanks. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Biruitorul, Thank you very much for the correcting English in my article. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

May I please include you as the author of the article in my DYK nomination?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned a comment by you in a ANI about another user

As a courtesy, I referred to one of your comments in regard to an ANI about another user. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations

This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here [39].Bali ultimate (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: June 9th

Hi. Thank you very much for providing all those links. I wasn't going to edit about Maramures, but I saw a recent edit, one thing led to another, and I combed a bit Northern Maramuresh. Thanks you for pointing me to the article in Enciclopedia Romaniei. I see it is based on Filipascu's book, which is one of the main references, but I don't have it. SO, I can use Enciclopedia Romaniei article in lieu.

If you are planning to edit the article about 1937 election, let me know, I can do some routine/tedious work there, and you can come later to check with a fresh look.

I am just coming back from a long wikibreak, and in fact I am not yet sure if I would be able to regain momentum soon. But thanks to your links and information, it gets better and easier to progress, b/c of the effect of collaboration. Only that you give me too much information to digest. :)

I like how the article about Massacres in Northern Transylvania (ro.wiki) describes the details of the first weeks. I wanted to expand in a similar way the article Soviet occupation of Bessarabia, using some references available in the ru.wiki version of that article, which are only used very superficially. Unfortunately, they are in Russian, so I can not employ help. They describe the Soviet political and military preparations and some details from the ground.

Also, I want to edit a bit articles with available statistical data about Moldova. I have found the results of the 1930 Romanian census online, village by village, but only for the Bessarabian counties: http://dediserver.eu/hosting/ethnodoc/data/MO_Allgemein_1930.pdf http://dediserver.eu/hosting/ethnodoc/data/MO_Hotin_1930.pdf http://dediserver.eu/hosting/ethnodoc/data/MO_Cetatea%20Alba_1930.pdf etc. I think it's a database in construction (http://dediserver.eu/). To find more relevant data, go to http://dediserver.eu/hosting/ethnodoc/html/abfrage_ethnodoc/abfrage.php, and in the last spot enter 26002180. Once there, if you click the available documents, the links would be broken, but you can replace the portion "html/abfrage_ethnodoc/Dateien/" from the middle of the http line with "data", and it usually works. All previous attempts I had at finding the data for 1930 census were in vain. My understanding is that the results are published in huge books wich exist in libraries, but nobody yet tried to digitalize them systematically. B/c all refs I ever found point to the paper versions printed in 1930s. So, I find this website very useful. If one browses it a bit, I am sure one can find more interesting stuff there.

In the end, let me mention that the map of Moldova that you linked into Demographics of Moldova is indeed excellent! Of course, the numbers for each locality are available, but it's one thing to "read" a big table, and much better to see it in front. Thank you for finding it, and see you around, Dc76\^talk 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PASOK

Hi. I noticed you deleted the disambiguation page for PASOK and redirected it to the Panhellenic Socialist Movement without any explanation. I have reverted as PASOK is also used as an abbreviation by a different group. - Bob K | Talk 08:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

legat de satu mare

Era corect si termenul de Meander nu trebuia sa-l schimbi, da faci cum vrei. Mario1987 11:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Magicians' Guild

Hi...I hope you'll give me some suggestions as to how to make this article less suggestive of being commercial. --Kismetmagic (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Kismet

Response to CMG Deletion

When one writes the expression "With all due respect" it means that one hopes to be respectful. You can't then write that my opinion is "nonsense." Personal opinions are irrelevant just as my belief that your opinion is nonsense. There's no need for negative and/or bloviating crosstalk here. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but I'm fairly certain what ethics and maturity demand of both you and I. Further, I have a respect for Wikipedia in that it can contain opinions different from mine. It's only concern is the accumulation and expression of verifiable knowledge.

The Catholic Magicians' Guild is a legitimate organization that has 700 members worldwide. It has published a book through Crossroad , on the art of Gospel Magic through one of the world's largest theology publishers . This is not a fly-by-night, flash-in-the-pan or self-serving organization. It is a non-profit that supports through funding and volunteering Maghi Senza Frontiere, a organization operated through Fondazione Mago Sales, (Torino) the world's largest Gospel Magic organization. We do good work and we ask nothing for it.

Another Response to CMG Deletion

In that case, you made a poor choice in using the world "nonsense" but I forgive you. But I'm not arguing whether it was "unanimously deleted" a year ago or not. I'm arguing that my article was not labeled as "speedy deletion." In fact the wording was actually quite gentle suggesting that I had time to make changes. You didn't address that in your response. There are at least 30 mentions of the Guild on-line. This is a lot considering there aren't many magic organizations and we've been mentioned by several of them sometimes multiple times. To rephrase my question: why did you delete the large when the flag didn't suggest it it was in imminent danger of being deleted?--Kismetmagic (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Kismet

Thank you Biruitorul for the encouragement and the advice. Peterkecs (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
		I, Tymek (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC), am awarding you this Barnstar for your arduous and much appreciated efforts in adding Polish diacritics to Poland-related articles. You have made so many articles look better!
		this WikiAward was given to Biruitorul by Tymek (talk) on 04:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect IW links at Zana e malit

Thanks for removing those - I guess the article's original creator copied them from another article when s/he was building the page, and I overlooked them during my cleanup. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ack!

And now mine eyes weep too... There is a chance of notability there, but where to start fixing them? And I'm guessing there's another one of those touchy ego ("my article, my rules") issues once fixing is advanced as a possibility. Still more, this issue would require me slipping back into a mode so different from what I'm doing now (more so since the links made me temporarily blind). Serenity now, serenity now. Dahn (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm an ingrate: I never got around to thanking you for your quick and cool interventions on the Barbu article, the Lungu DYK etc. etc. Well, here I go: thank you.

Btw, I'm still a bit less involved than I would like to be for now (other than cooking up articles, as mentioned), and, come Monday, I may be out of internet range for some days (probably a week or so). But I will do my best to keep in touch before and after - eventually, with a better tempo than current. And I'll also keep up on my promises, hopefully. Dahn (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's another knot waiting to be untied. I recently noticed this. Note how it is not a subcategory of this (whose proper brackets are aptly reflected in its subcategories' titles). No, it is a instead a subcategory of this, which is redundant to both the aforementioned and the categories for publishing houses etc. You see, someone did have the foresight and common sense to understand that not adding the brackets will lead to such a mess. But lo, the vague category is kept because it shouldn't include many articles - as per the "please read me" cat page header and comment on the talk page (a comment from December 2006). Talk about Murphy's Laws...

And, btw, remember that old "let me introduce you to my family" issue (maybe to be dealt with when I return)? Well, here's another knot. To find its "explanation" in a Romanian context is sterile, as is any attempt to distinguish between it and boyars, as is the fact that now even people like, say, Adrian Năstase and Ion Ţiriac "qualify". For all the nonsense one may here, being one in the good old days did not equal being an aristocrat - and, for those who were, the cats for aristocrats already do the job. The cat (unlike its Welsh counterpart, nevertheless started for equally clueless reasons), was simply designed so as to include articles which shouldn't be at all. And, in fact, the very criterion appears to be out of valid categorization criteria bounds. So what is the solution here? Delete the articles first? Delete the cat first? Both at the same time?

And since both cases involve a lot of ego on the other side, in addition to being complicated as hell, you can tell my predicament. Dahn (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Turns out I'm not going anywhere, at least for now. About your last post: Ima coming, Ima coming... Btw, that article I mentioned: it wasn't Nedelciu (it would have been so very anti-climactic...). That's just the redlink filling mode that I get to into once in a while, to keep up my stock rating - yes, Biru, I'm a petty, jealous individual :). Dahn (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me for not following up that too just yet: yesterday, something very serious came up in RL, and I can only edit in rather short sessions if at all. I'm still in town and should be more active by next week, but please do keep me informed on any issue you feel needs my input in the meantime - particularly those were the request is not urgent, as it's very possible I may not be able to reply in time. Dahn (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete article Competiton 10

As vrea sa stiu si eu motivul pentru care vreti sa stergeti acest articol competition 10

Dragos muresan (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourg–Romania relations

Could you please add evidence of a search in Romanian? thanks LibStar (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks LibStar (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits in Hungary article

"Ethnic consequences of the Ottoman wars As a consequence of the constant warfare between Hungarians and Ottoman Turks, population growth was stunted and the network of medieval settlements with their urbanized bourgeois inhabitants perished. The 150 years of Turkish rule fundamentally changed the ethnic composition of Hungary. As a result of demographic losses including deportations and masscares, the number of ethnic Hungarians in existence at the end of the Turkish period was substantially diminished"

It is the official standpoint of (academic) Hungarian historians. The radical growth of the ratio of minority groups in Hungarian Kingdom were caused by the genocides of Mongol (1241-1242) and Ottoman-Turkish wars (16-17th century). According to Hungarian historians,: the Romanians are immigrants in depopulated parts of Transylvania, they appeared after the first Mongol attack and genocide (1241-1242). Hungarian historians always cited the lack of romanian buildings and other material proofs before the period of Mongol attacks. These early transylvanian Romanians are depicted as mountain sepherds. --Celebration1981 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cristian Diaconescu

On July 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cristian Diaconescu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 14:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Great job

		The Special Barnstar
		You've made some of the best worded arguments I've read recently in some of the "X-Y relations" AfD's. Very well put and persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Localities in Moldova

Thank you very much for your excellent job in this area. It is a very good idea you put a checkmarks at Talk:Administrative divisions of Moldova. But, could you, please, work from List of localities in Moldova. I will try to keep ahead of you in verifying the list, so you can work from it. If you see any discrepancy with the sources you work from, please point them right away. Also, as a note: I started the red link Wikipedia:WikiProject Moldova/Conventions.

Could you also, please have a look at Template talk:Quarters Bucharest, as well as my edits to that template. Be bold and do edit if you see fit. I don't mind if you undo me, since then we can simply discuss in which template to put the links that I added. Dc76\^talk 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to cut the knot ? Dc76\^talk 23:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Norica Nicolai

On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norica Nicolai, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic Church

Dintr-un punct de vedere ortodox, singura Biserica Catolica este Biserica crestinilor Ortodocsi. In trecut, deobicei Biserica (Ortodoxa) era numita Catolica (este si azi defapt, dar nu prea des, dar oficial este in continuare), iar teologia ei Ortodoxa, din acest motiv membri Biserici Catolice (adica Ortodoxe) erau numiti ortodocsi (pentru ca urmau credinta ortodoxa), dar termenul de "Biserica Ortodoxa" e mai recent. Ti-as recomanda inafar de ce e aratat pe pagina de discutie de la acel articol, sa citesti si acest articol destul de scurt (dar explica niste lucruri despre cuvantul "Catolic"). Te rog sa te gandesti mai atent la aceasta problema. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Request move

Hello, since you participitated Talk:Assyrian_people#Requested_move, I was wondering if you could do the same for the rest of related pages at Talk:Assyrian/Syriac_diaspora#Request_Move. Iraqi (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicolae Ceacescu

You wrote that the Council of State of Romania discontinued when Nicolae Ceacescu became President in 1974. This is not true. The Council of State existed to December 22, 1989. My source is among others Europas World Year book 1985.

Mbakkel2 (talk 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fundaţia Antarctică Română

I bow to your knowledge of Romanian [40]

I used google's tranlate service, and started a Fundatia Antarctica Romana article on the Romanian wikipedia. It was promptly speedy deleted on the grounds it was an automatic translation. Several other articles I started were deleted, or nominated for speedy deletion.

I moved the two that had been nominated, but not yet deleted, to my user space, to address the concerns. Is that allowed on the Romanian wikipedia?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Localities in Moldova

[41] I see it as Marcăuţi (first vowle is a, not ă), both in my printed file of the 2004 Moldovan Census, and in the Administrativ-territorial organization Law [42]. That's why I wanted to be able (time-wise) to go ahead of you to set the List of localities in Moldova, so that I can check every name. Many people who do this in Romanian Wikipedia are not from Moldova, and they render names in the specific ways they see more fit for the region from which they come. Dc76\^talk 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! So quick! Dc76\^talk 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please go back and add infoboxes to your new stubs like I have done to Bulăieşti. To find the coordinates google search and you should find the coordinates to enter in the box. Note also if it is a commune and a village please add Category:Cities, towns and villages in Moldova. I have a feel some of these articles have articles on Romanian wikipedia too so info can be extracted either now or later. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note, that Bulăieşti for example belongs to Category:Communes of Orhei district, which is a subcategory of Category:Cities, towns and villages in Moldova. If you know in which district it is, please do this right away, instead of putting too many entries into the parent category for future distribution. In case you doubt, just mention to me of such localities, I will take care of them. As for your request to add infoboxes, you do realize the amount of work required! I am not saying it shouldn't be done, on the contrary. Is the infobox for localities of Moldova in perfect condition? If not, we better check it now before we add it to hundreds of communes. Dc76\^talk 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming from a wikipedian who has added infoboxes to tens of thousands of articles I think I am actually more onfirmed of what work it entails than you might think. I've just created tons of Czehc municipalities with an infobox which is empty but reayd for filling later. It will save time later when they developed. I have and I just noticed that you have split the main category by communes so the main cat isn't needed I gree. However it is unusual to list them as communes under cities towns and villages which is why I didn't catch it first time but this is OK. Might I recommend then that you please link the communes for each district in the relative district articles and perhaps create some templates by district to connect the articles together. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I can help you out with those tomorrow. I've worked on most countries on here. I can help add infoboxes and templates, Moldova isn't that big a country as far as I'm aware. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my words were too unchiseled, I hope I did not offend you. What I meant is that it is too much work for me. I have 7,000 edits total over 3 years, and adding infoboxes to 900 articles would take me several months. I did not mean to say that we cannot get any help. On the contrary, any help is deeply-deeply appreciated! I have created a few templates (see [43]), but that's not enough yet. Originally I started to make templates and then make articles for localities from there, but it was too much work and it overwhelmed me, with real-life obligations, and I gave it up to be continued in the future. Now, with Biruitorul's support in starting new articles, I found a more efficient way: first I should make the list of them, well-organized and triple checked list. Although I don't like to make promises too difficult for me to finish, I promise I will finish the list in less than a week. I mean I would have verified everything to be 100% correct. (Making an incorrect incomplete list is easy, but not helpful.)

About articles for district, yes I do that in parallel, but I have started with unordinary cases, and left the routine cases to the last. You see, with every new one I do, I find better ways to improve contentwise, so I have to go back to redo the old ones.

About infoboxes. I have not mastered yet well enough all the variations and sorts they come in, so frankly speaking I don't know what's the best (empty) format to add to each article. If such a format exists, and someone with better knowledge than me has checked it, then that would make things much better and easier. What I hate is to use one format and discover halfway we want to modify it a little bit. If that repeats twice, it would kill me, I'll never be able to arrive to finish. :) Dc76\^talk 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should look into it. ALl you have to do is copy the box in each article, we are not talking months here, it took me ten minutes to add boxes to a whole district and I wouldn't have even have had to do that if you'd started them like that first time. All you have to do it copy the box for each one and just change thename in the box. If you are working through one district that is all you have to do. When you change district all you have to do is change the ndistrict name and then carry on.. You don't have to add the coordinates so it won't take any extra time trust me but it will be much more helpful later when they develop to add the empty boxes first time. I'll provide an example. P.S. to save you time you can also add {{subst:PAGENAME}} in the place of the title so it shouldn't ake you very long to create them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. All you have to do to create them is copy this. Where it says title and where the article name is displayed in bold in the text replace it with {{subst:PAGENAME}} . This should enable you to create the articles must faster and create a better start for developers later When you change district all you have to do it change the distri name in box and copy the exact same thing every time into each commune you create. Is that difficult?. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, it is not difficult. :) Because you have thought about the infobox, and did it for a couple localities. From now on it will be indeed 10-20 minutes per district. :) Please, understand, I have a number of things on my mind to be careful when doing all these, and I am quite inexperienced with infoboxes. I still have fresh on my mind the memory of me incorrectly merging Category:Politics of Moldova with Category:Government of Moldova over a year ago, which had to be undone, etc. Basically, since then I am in the do no harm mode. But now, that you take full responsibility ;) for the fallout of adding infoboxes in the precise manner you describe, I have no reservations anymore. Now seriously, of course, I will be careful. Dc76\^talk 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bituitorul, I am just making the list, and not fixing the redirects at this time [44], so far it was you who did this job alone :) I live them non-redirected on purpose, so that you see them blue, and know to add a disambig to e.g. Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Dc76\^talk 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium.

I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others peoples' !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [45]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Kord romanian band

Hi Biruitorul! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Kord romanian band- because: Has credible claim of significance (charting single) If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have the same opinion as decltype about Kord romanian band. I think it has credible claim of significance (charting single) and more others notable and reliable sources, like one of the Kord members was a member in a band of a notable artist named Nicola. I've noticed that the article has again the speedy deletion tag. I've checked RT100 and they had a charted single in a national music, chart RT100 for more then one week in 2005. Maybe you'd like reconsider your speedy deletion tag, and remove again that tag, because i'm a begginer in Wikipedia editing and i don't know how to do that. thanks a lot.Lukasandi (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Abraham Goldfaden

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Abraham Goldfaden/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Awright!

Believe me, you've made my day! Here I was, dragging myself around and going into mad prophet mode, because, wherever I turned, it looked like things were degenerating, and then... much to smile about indeed (an awful thing to say about graves...).

Unfortunately, my life and activities are still so fragmented that I cannot live up to my promises. I am working frantically on a few articles, but I still have problems making other commitments (particularly since most of the old problems I've been dragging my feet about are monstrous in scale). But out of sight is not out of mind. Dahn (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:SaidMusa.JPG

File:SaidMusa.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Said Musa.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Said Musa.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:ColvilleYoung.JPG is now available as Commons:File:ColvilleYoung.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:MarkFelt.jpg is now available as Commons:File:MarkFelt.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

File:DavidBrooks.jpg is now available as Commons:File:DavidBrooks.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

I'm just about to sign out, but not before I welcome you back. So, how's things? Dahn (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, have you seen this monstrosity? Dahn (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

<torment>Oooooo...</torment> I guess I'll answer in the order you posted them:

1. Bigotti, for the sake of argument, may be notable - but, gee, do I want to be the one sourcing its notability? New Generation - it's the kind of article that makes me wish I'd spend a week or so on AfD, to at least get rid of some such drops in the ocean (and I'll follow you to AfD in case you want to start it). ECIR, INTERREG, ACEEEO - I'm willing to bet someone will wrestle with them coming from some other article (and you wanna bet there's gonna be some "inclusionists" around when that happens?). Carrefour Colentina - it seems a larger problem, since it's borderline to the mall articles (which, against my best judgment, nobody will erase), but obviously it's moronic to assume that every Carrefour or Tesco out there should have a separate article - out of sight, out of mind, publish and be damned in this case.
2. Between disastrous and "meh", nothing unmanageable (joining the ranks of this and this and this - oh, how I dream of improving those! - and, well, see below)
3. I guess the city got exhausted after producing this. Where to start, really, and at what prospects? I'd call in a football taskforce, if they even have one.
4. Delia and Bere Gratis are, alas, keepers by wiki standards, provided we get rid of "and the zodiac is Aquarius" (meaning...?) et al. Vassiliu is completely out of my remotest area of interest, I'm quite glad to say :). Play & Win... maybe you've seen what happened on DYK. In any case, why is their music producer a quasiparticle? (Which reminds me how I was always intrigued that the company would go with a name that reads "Rotten Music".) Casa Productions... they may just barely make the cut for notability (no matter how much they suck).
5. I clicked, I glanced, I clicked the backspace button. It would require me to actually take an interest in who this person is, and then take it down the path to a likely Mosora fiasco. Maybe to revisit, but only a day when the gods smile on me :).
6. Yes. In the meantime, why not just merge back?
7. Ah, but I'm still munchin' on the cookie he gave me. This was a good idea, and I'd say implicitly that some other building that's just "mentionable" because it's "big" don't make the cut. If it's AfD, I'd tend to encourage you to start them - I don't want to antagonize the editor any further, even if he's got to stop creating articles without consideration for the rules and guidelines.
8. ...

In addition (as per my "see below" comment): this should have been on my list a long time ago, and apparently God really does punish the lazy. Out of the many, many things, bare with the article for the funniest-ever translation of the word eforie. Dahn (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about the schools thing, but I'm on it. And now that I remember things: did you perchance see me waging war on the blind the other day? Dahn (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm at your disposal, whenever you'll have the time. And thanks for pointing me to that debate. Incidentally, I seem to have moved to the center these past years, so I don't know where I've ended up really (except in the "orange" area, given the circumstance). But that may indeed be because I've been dead for 20 years. Dahn (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and: no mercy on the blind! Dahn (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Alow me to start by saying this: you are a modern hero. You've been popping up all over my watchlist screen with those monotonous but excellent edits. It's one of those things that in the future they'll never believe was done by a single man, and will link it to paleoastronautics or similar. Tucă was my "I noticed" signal - I didn't want to get more involved, because it's very easy to get in the way of something that way, and because I really can't keep up with you. And now Moldova... (Speaking of Caracal - I dream of the day when that article will be decent enough to have a decent section on the "overturned cart" story too.)

The first and most necessary thing on the Arad issue would be to let the user in question know and know for sure how wikipedia works. He seems to have some potential, and seems well-intentioned, but that just won't do. I would start reverting en masse, but it seems some good-faith edits got in the way in between. The usual argh and live to fight another day, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid the "bilateral relations" issue won't end until some users get blocked or at least topic banned. This is a subversive attempt with many, many ramifications, and I'm first and foremost astonished by the admin apathy. Btw, when they parrot sources, don't they actually also introduce plagiarism. Rather than face the same sciolists and their puerile games on each topical article, I'd join any initiative that groups several users who acknowledge the problem, and make it all into a centralized discussion somewhere. And, yes, the Protochronism in those articles is disturbing - what's next? Burebista in Italo-Romanian relations? Yuck. (Incidentally, an additional problem I'm facing is that me editing out the crap from such articles would not have a chance of surviving much as an edit, and would also somehow imply that I agree with them on principle... it's lose-lose for me so far.) Dahn (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexandru Filip

Hi! I've removed your speedy deletion tag from the Alexandru Filip article. You tagged it as an A3 ("article consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images"), which is clearly not applicable since the article already had an informative infobox with the person's name, birth date and place, current and former teams etc. The fact that it had no lead section took me about sixty seconds to fix :) Also please note that the A3 criterion explicitly states that "this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information". Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Same thing for Ionuţ Balaur. Jafeluv (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Akimuddin Gronthagar

Hello Biruitorul, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Akimuddin Gronthagar has been removed. It was removed by Sirmao Sur with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Sirmao Sur before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from Södertälje Kings

Hello Biruitorul, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Södertälje Kings has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(contest prod - a team playing at the top national level of basketball)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Kolozsvár

Salut Biruitorul,

Having seen your user page, i have to tell you that, unfortunately, my command of English is more worse than that of yours. And i am reluctant to communicate with those people who can speak English as well as a native English. But can you tell me that was why you reverted my contributions to the article ?--Nmate (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. It is O.K. to me.--Nmate (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Stick with me, I'm going places :)

"Hello, Crin Antonescu. This message is being sent to inform you..." I truly live in the homeland of the absurd. Dahn (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing they let him attend the inauguration after all. But it's only now I notice: it could be any one of these guys ;). Dahn (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't resist the zinger: is that supposed to be the Spartacus cliché? I vaguely remember something like "I am DMX", but I don't think that's where it's from... What it does bring to mind is this story in (I think) 1001 and Nights, where they want to catch the "emir of thieves" by appealing to his vanity, and spread agents provocateurs around to shout "I am the emir of thieves". You know it? Dahn (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Please check to see if I didn't drop any Americanisms in there - I'm on automatic pilot already... :). And on that other issue that keeps popping up on both our pages: illegitimi non carborundum, and don't let him get to you - as you know, the caravan, the barks... Dahn (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I hear you: it's recentism galore on that page, and the "special occasion" section (which popped out of nowhere, and is poorly-conceived) only eats at the standard format from another angle. But given the nature of the hook, it's probably unavoidable - though we could of course pick something from her first term, which would at least have the semblance of historicism. My main concern was that mentioning her main office would risk "rotting" the original hook in a couple of days (I'm not a psychic, but it looks like it's getting quite close to that), whereas not mentioning it would create a vacuum in the middle of the hook. I proposed an alt (and thanks for trusting me to do it), but it's really not a "let's have it" issue. The main advantage in my proposal (or any other fact that is voiced as if tied to the present) is that it doesn't imply that she is still minister by the time it's on page 1, just that she was at some point.

Oh, and: don't mention it. It's getting very hard to say "I wish I could do more" in situations where suspicion is cast over every tiny issue, but do count on me to help others distinguish between politically motivated character assassination and honest criticism. If for no other reason, then at least because you have repeatedly done the same for me. Dahn (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's just that I have to log off now - I'm on it later today. (Kudos already, me likes.) Dahn (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Romanian communes

Hi, I'm currently going through Romanian communes adding infoboxes and references. However, I've found virtually all of them have incorrect data, some even claiming 2002 census data, then when I provide a reference here they are often 300 out. Could you please help me by adding infoboxes to the communes and a proper reference. As it stands it looks as if maybe at least a thousand articles have incorrect data. I checked on Romanian wiki and often their "2002 census" data does not reflect what is given on the official statists site. Himalayan 14:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done nearly two counties already, but this is the sort of job that really should be done by a bot on here. There should be a bot adding infoboxes and referencing basic data on articles on rural commuines on here and I don't just mean Romania, I mean those countries listed on my user page and many others... Himalayan 14:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

At least we have images if places like Arieşeni... Himalayan 14:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry beacuse of your having changed the Polonita page. However it is good in presen form, too. A special interest, that you couldn't nkow: My grand-gand-grandfather was born in this villige as lengyelfalvi Erőss Farkas where lengyelfalvi was a vorname of a (poor) noble man. Consequence: Erőss Zsolt must be my realtive, athough I don't know him personally. Greetings! --ZJ (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indians in Germany

I have undone your revision of this article. The reasons are stated on the talk page under "Removal of various people from list". Before editing the article further, please debate the matter properly and do not delete people autocratically. Anuragi (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments on your answer on the talk page. Anuragi (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Man, that's the funniest autoblock I've ever seen. This made my day. Anonimu (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Whadda'ell happened, really? Dahn (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all part of this saga. Russavia was banned, and my IP was briefly blocked along with it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you glad you shared something with Russavia before the door hit him/her on the way out? <musical theme from Psycho>Wait a minute... it's all becoming clear now... you are Russavia.</musical theme from Psycho> Dahn (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, hope you have nothing to do with the private mailing list that may lead to EE Arb, the 3rd(4th?).Anonimu (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..." - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is Enugu State?

Linguistic map of Nigeria, Cameroon, and Benin

I see you removed the map locating this state from the article on Ike Ekweremadu. I am not sure I agree. As you know, Nigeria suffers from considerable tension between the regions, which have very different cultures, languages and religions. Not all readers will know that Enugu is in the southeast. A map illustrates that point and also lightens up the article visually. To your comment that the article on Strom Thurmond does not have a locator map for South Carolina, perhaps it should. Many non-American readers (and some American readers) will not know where that state is in the USA - although perhaps in this case regional issues are less important. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I seem to be on a roll doing thumbnail write-ups of Nigerian Senators. It is extraordinary that hardly any had articles until I started, although there are plenty of English-language sources and these are powerful and interesting people. Maybe I was partly wanting to add a picture just to liven up the text, and I do like maps. But I think geography is much more relevant in this case than it would be with most countries. The politics are tangled and murky with a lot of deals being made between North and South, ongoing violence in the Delta region where the oil comes from, constitution in upheaval and so on. So far, all the senators I have "done" were born in the state they represent, not surprising given the patchwork of ethnic groups (see map). A Hausa could never get elected in Igbo country. In England, it would be unusual to find any politician who was born in their constituency. Agreed that it is not that important either way, but let's leave the maps with this set of articles. I really think they add value for this country. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case at the request of the Arbitration Committee, here. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment here

User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Review (2009)

Please note, Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1 Fifelfoo (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan Herman

Hi. Can you somehow instruct me on how to edit this article further, or is there no chance, you think, of it bring kept Heili M. (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ecaterina Andronescu

On September 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ecaterina Andronescu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Armenians in Georgia

Hi. I agree these and other Armeno-Georgian articles are very problematic especially since they have been significantly altered by a couple of users with strong POV and little knowledge of Wikipedia policies. These users are typically difficult to dealt with. I have tagged these entries for POV. Hope to find time to work on them ASAP. Best regards, --Kober^Talk 15:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Armenians in Crimea

What part of this article needs work?--Hovik95 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob Yousefian

He is not a politican in Armenia. He's an Armenian-American.

Armenian Heritage Park in Boston

What I have to do, that this images wouldn't be copyrighted.--Hovik95 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Biruitorul. You have new messages at Izzedine's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

I ask and recieve e-mail to http://armenianheritagepark.net/ and what I have to do now?--Hovik95 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you. --Hovik95 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gigurtu

Well, there's a problem I don't know how to go around. There's a citation in there for the cabinet's passing of a decree stripping some 200,000 Jews of their citizenship rights. However, the legislation was not passed by Gigurtu, but by Goga in 1938. Gigurtu is the guy who gave us the Nuremberg Laws and took it up a notch. Can you check the source again or perhaps, in case it is an error in the source, suggest how we should approach it? There's also a problem of phrasing: Goga did say that he was expelling Jews who had "sneaked into Romania", but that was mainly a canard and an excuse to pull out a trick convenient for his views; in any case, if his accusation is not entirely fictional, it is impossible that all, or even a large number, of the 200,000 were naturalized refugees. In fact, what Goga did was to make all Jews in Romania liable to losing their citizenship, and it appears that most of those who lost their citizenship as a consequence were victims of bureaucratic procedures (not even proven refugees, but people who were locked in a conundrum by having to prove they weren't to someone who didn't really care, and within a very short interval). The article now says "a decree-law revising the citizenship status of Jews who had settled in Romania starting in 1919 (about a third of those affected, or 225,222 individuals, were stripped of their citizenship)" - this is wrong, and also seems to imply that only a portion of those targeted by the law were actually touched by the law.

I noticed this as I was expanding the article, and it came well into the narrative. It would help me a lot if, instead of editing out the problem in the article, you'd let me know what you think I should with to the segment in question. That way, we avoid the edit conflict. No rush, though: I can always save it somewhere on my drive. Dahn (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I should add that Ornea (and I think Deletant too, haven't checked yet but do have a vague recollection) provides the exact same number, with many of the additional details I cited, but attributes it to Goga and gives the exact date as January 1938. Now I'm thinking that, since a reference to Gigurtu's Nurembergish stuff is bound to include a mention of what policies were already in place, we can use your reference for a generic phrase about how he "upheld" or similar the said decree. Do you think it's a good idea?

Also, so as not to botch up your text: I presume each note verifies the paragraph in front of it when preceded by an uncited phrase. Am I right? I'm asking this because the sources I use may source only, say, the first half of the paragraph, and I need your okay for duplicating the refs you used if that should happen. Dahn (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. Awright then, I'm sorted. Dahn (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lemme start with the hook suggestion: it's fine by me. Great job on the new additions - I was gonna raid gbooks myself, but I ran out of time yesterday (which reminds me: I'm out of town for the next few days - was supposed to have left today -, and I may be harder to reach; I apologize in advance for that). Concerning Maniu's claim: it could perhaps go in the paragraph you expanded, which is largely about the circumstances propelling him to power. I can see it going right after "implementation of Germany's decision to grant part of Transylvania region to Hungary." Maybe: "The part played by political circumstances in bringing Gigurtu to the premiership was highlighted by National Peasant's Party leader Iuliu Maniu, an opponent of Carol, who described the new head of government as "the most accidental Romanian prime minister"." If you approve of this and want dibs, feel free to rephrase it any way you see fit. And I can see a point to quoting Wylie's book too. Dahn (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I've still got a few hours to kill though, and I hope I'll be in touch even during the interval (though I can't really promise it).

It is a shame about the snippets, and, well, you know my opinion on using just a tidbit from a larger source - though, in this case, they do apparently cite all his pre-1940 bio data, so I think we could safely use [either of] them alongside each citation on the basic facts of his life (even the ones that don't show in the snippet). I also tried to compensate them by looking for the data elsewhere - couldn't find anything on his wife, but check this out (the source should be okay for reliability, and there's the whole lineage).

I wish I could add a note speeding up the hook, but I'm guessing it doesn't count, since I was also a hand on the article (before you ask: I'm not saying that to get partial credit, you did all the 5X expansion and obviously deserve the recognition; it's just that I think there's a potential hassle if I do approve the hook, and I wanted you to know that it's not because I'm an ingrate that I didn't do it yet). Dahn (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I had little opportunity to keep up with the goings-on during my trip to ___ well, I'm guessing by now you know what city I was in (and it seems like we're tackling Muntenian towns from two ends).

Incidentally: We made the funny papers. But don't you just love how the entire gvt structure changed on us since?

And hey, it's really no problem about the hook. Dahn (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're too kind: not so sure about them being nice pictures (photography is admittedly not my best skill, and the day was quite crappy), but it sure is a nice town. Notice how I tried to avoid the "no freedom of panorama" conundrum... My original reaction was to think that you were complimenting the guys at Caţavencu; but to me it looks like they just wrote the page to mark that they were surprised to see this on wiki's front page - the rest of the comment is, shall we say, gargară. Any publicity is good publicity, though ;).

Yes, I had noticed that Pleşiţă entry, and it is intriguing - and why do these interesting things always happen when I'm off-wiki? :) Believe it or not, I'm working on an article very closely related to that subject, and which should also add a weird and somehow fascinating detail about the old "Iron Guard and the LGBT community" issue. Have I managed to tickle your curiosity? Well then, stay tuned...

As for the ministers: yes, but the thing now is that half of them are "uberministers" or something - this both cuts the number of ministers by half and increases the number of ministers per head of politician. Don't get me wrong: it's not fun redoing this stuff on wiki, but in the real world I'm all good riddance to bad rubbish ;). Dahn (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that's... painful. Who are those users, and what corners did they creep out of? Anyway, I promise to be back with The Answers in my next wiki session. Dahn (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's been ten days since my promise (in my defense, I had a couple of days of technical problems to deal with), I must return with an apology: looks like it's gonna take me some more (I did try to follow up on the punctual issues, though). And many thanks for the quick fixes on my various edits.

In any case, let me just note this for now (because I'm sure I'm going to forget it later): remember when we were discussing the gratuitous use of photographs which are crammed in the text because it can't normally be illustrated? Well, if you want hybris, check this out... Dahn (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Illythr [02.05.2009-3:25]

It seems that some IPs from Moldova are erroneously whoised to California. I'd like to visit the place, but have never been to US yet. As for my mad English skilz - Biophys' remark was very close to truth (as was his paranoia about the list being sent to ArbComm by a mole, ironically): my teacher was a (former) military translator. --Illythr (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting read, indeed. I am also kind of flattered of the rest of the thread. Perhaps I will gather such impressions of me (including onwiki) by other editors on a special vanity page when I get sufficiently bored. It's not easy being a Russian nationalist Russophobe, you know. --Illythr (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

undeleted nonsense

I wouldn't be to bothered with pointing out the obvious, you have very effectively shown its shortcomings, and there is an upside if it were kept. The lists and templates keep tendentious types occupied, possibly less harmful than their attempts to edit proper articles. Regards, cygnis insignis 19:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Robert L. Chandler

Hello Biruitorul, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Robert L. Chandler has been removed. It was removed by Wikieditor20092010 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Wikieditor20092010 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

List of localities in Moldova

I have created Donduşeni (commune) before I realized that in a similar situation you created Drochia, Drochia. Could you, please, make them uniform, i.e. either move Donduşeni (commune) to Donduşeni, Donduşeni, or move Drochia, Drochia to Drochia (commune). Also, you might want to add more redirects based on the names in here and here. Since we got quite far under way, maybe we should copyedit all the articles of the communes in these two districts, of the two cities, and of the two districts. Feel free to copy-paste the model I used for the Drochia's, Donduşeni's, or Birceni's. Filling in the data is actually quite easy once the model is there. Also, perhaps we can expand Soroca County. We could later on use this as a model for all districts and counties of Moldova, resp. Bessarbia. Dc76\^talk 01:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Take as much time as you need. Let me know if I can help you with routine tasks in whatever you do. Dc76\^talk 13:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Excelent, mulţumesc frumos. Am dat click pe fiecare comună şi am redirecţionat unde era cazul. Mai rămâne să adaug numele vechi pentru satele din raionul Drochia şi să îmbunătăţesc articolul Donduşeni district. Pentru azi m-am săturat. Dar am un sentiment de lucru aproape împlinit. Dc76\^talk 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As of now, Donduşeni and Drochia districts, as well as all localities within have coherent articles set up. Now anybody can come and improve. It remains to do the same for the rest of Moldova. I have not improved Soroca County. I believe for all 9 historical counties of Bessarabia we should have good articles that would start since they were set up in 14th-15th centuries and describe all periods with all available information to us. A few sources that might come handy: Dimitrie Cantemir, Ion Nistor, Russian censa data, Portretul Romaniei Interbelice, 1930 census data, 1998-2003 data. These are just the obvious sources, not to mention things were can find with Google or in libraries. The county existed continuously through 1949 (with the exception of a few years in 19th century when it was merged with Hotin County). It corresponds to Donduşeni, Drochia, Soroca, Floreşti, and parts of Ocniţa and Şoldăneşti districts. we should perhaps work on it in a sandbox, so that we can possibly make a DYK hook, i.e. don't rush. Dc76\^talk 01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So, you work from the list that was in ro.wiki... I did not trust they did a perfect job there, so I started on my own. I just finished Edinet district at List of localities in Moldova. With that I've done 13 (the first 13 alphabetically), and there are 19 to go.

For 4 of the 13 (Donduseni, Drochia, Dubasari and Edinet) I did also a little bit more: I looked into the 1930 map and 1930 tables, and I have identified the former names. (A few current hamlets do not appear in 1930, so those have no former names.) This is a very interesting process and I kind of like it (I like reading maps), but it is too much time consuming, so I guess I won't do this now for the rest. (Will do it sometimes later.)

Also, perhaps I shouldn't fill in now more data as I did for Drochia district (I did it there mostly because I wanted to have one-two districts done well.) I am afraid if I don't get to the bottom of the 32... 19 is still a large number... Dc76\^talk 03:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Estrojam's Decibelle Music and Culture Festival

Hello Biruitorul, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Estrojam's Decibelle Music and Culture Festival has been removed. It was removed by Electriclady66 with the following edit summary '(Edited text.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Electriclady66 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicolae Pleşiţă

Thanks for helping on the Pleşiţă article. If you are able to read Romanian, it would be great if you could add any pertinent information from the Romanian language articles in the "External links" section. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

French Church (Bucharest)

Hey there, it's always nice to hear from you. Glad you visited the southern strip of Dobrogea currently occupied by Bulgarian guerrillas; how did you find Varna? Needless to say, the article is pretty well-written and meets all criteria. I don't see the rooster either, unless it's a very exaggerated compliment to the dove (?) atop the cross, but indeed the source seems pretty reliable. Wish I had such a book on religious buildings in Bulgarian cities, would cause a wave of new articles. I do have one on medieval churches and ruins, but for obvious reasons it lacks historical detail.

You may check the Elenska Basilica nomination (here) if you feel like it :)

I notice it's kind of hard to get people to review that sort of articles on Eastern European people and buildings (at least the kind of articles I do). Perhaps it's natural, but the US, the UK and Western Europe seem to have an easier time getting a review at DYK. So do ask for a check whenever you need one and I'll do my best to be as accurate as possible. Todor→Bozhinov 10:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Romanian Bund

Hi. Thanks for the cleaning up of the General Jewish Labour Bund in Romania article. The article is 400 characters short of being nominated for DYK. Do you know any sources that could be used for expansion? --Soman (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for French Church (Bucharest)

On October 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French Church (Bucharest), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Koov sockpuppet

The edit patterns aren't quite the same, but it may be worth keeping an eye on the account. If it gets disruptive, please let me know. Might be worth it to ask for a checkuser just so we don't block an innocent user. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no

Sorry for the long delay in replying, and let me just address the issue on the agenda for now. No, that is not a problem (though what do the dates add to the name?); and I agree that the category is crowded (some subcategories are certainly needed, and I could live with most that exist). The problem is more with this and this type of categorizing - it's not just (arguably) overcategrization - a radiation cure for a cold -, it's also that the dates don't mean anything to the average reader, and in some cases don't mean anything at all. Dahn (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The dates for Greater Romania tell us that the category comprises articles about a certain period in history, not articles about Vadim's journal or an irredentist concept. The name Cat:Greater Romania (historic period) looks worse, IMHO. About the other examples, as I have just said in your talk page, you could have told me, you know. When was that you proposed something and I refused to consider it (if not even to agree with you)? Dc76\^talk 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"not articles about Vadim's journal or an irredentist concept" - firstly: realistically, what are the chances of that confusion in categorizing? secondly: some irredentist concepts (presuming they are ever articles) should in any case be included in the category in whatever form it has; thirdly: the name as is gives the impression that it disambiguates something that has no counterpart in the category tree ("Greater Romania (1918-1940)" as opposed to what other Greater Romania category?). Dahn (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

To Biruitorul: Here is a preliminary version, so we can experiment. Don't worry about deleting cats. For many of those I am the creator and the sole contributor, and I can nominate them for deletion as a group once we move their articles to proper places. (I dealt with CfD and CfM before, and the only thing was to wait 7 days for possible "con" votes, which never happen. The maximum, I might need a concurring vote... yeah, I know, vote shopping :-) ... but I hope that would come naturally when we settle the plan of action. I do not intend to do something if both Dahn and you would oppose.) Dc76\^talk 06:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The other issues

Hey, no biggie: I'm just sorry that this whole incident got in the way of other stuff we both enjoy more than debunking frivolous claims. As for the site itself: I always had my clues that theirs was not the best lead to follow, but I did not want to impose my rationale on anybody else (and the bigger problems that they have we both can identify, so I had no worries on that front). Indeed, it was (and is) an anomaly that the Stelian Popescu and Universul articles don't mention Polichinelle's secret, but I never viewed that as your fault - in fact, it's something I've considered expanding on at some point in the future. Then again, many other not unreliable sources don't mention that secret at all for some reason or another (mainly because the traditional Romanian tactic in historiography is despre morţi, numai de bine), and since you (like me) let the texts used as sources guide you, this was probably bound to be the case with many a hypothetical early version of those texts. The supposed "danger" of not yet mentioning this in one or both article is canceled by the fact that articles such as Adevărul state it clearly. There's nothing in what you did that I could hold against even if I wanted to, but yes, probably giving that site the cold treatment is the best solution for the future.

For the Regiunea Autonomă - my instinct tells me to side with the one most used in English (i.e. your version), but the move itself is not a big deal - particularly since the other user seems to be committed to it to the point where it's more worth it not to insist on a nuance. Since the two versions are not opposites, not do they display a significant qualitative difference (other than that one is more used than the other), and since the redirect is preserved, you might just as well flip a coin. Dahn (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vaguely on the subject: I was incidentally just reading this, and loved it. I'm thinking (or hoping) that you would find it interesting too - it relates to things we discussed in the past, and does your perspective on things a lot of justice. Dahn (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And more

Yes, I'm officially a jerk for not yet answering to your eloquent and thought-provoking post (not to mention the earlier ones). It being thought-provoking is probably why I keep postponing my reply: it deserves more of my attention than I can spare at the moment - for one, because of the new complicated issues which keep popping up every single day, and require a titanic force to be moved from here to there. Could you perhaps consider commenting on the categorizing issues? I think I'm making perfect sense, but I do welcome troubleshooting of my own proposals, and it seems that about 70% of what I have said on several talk pages is being read in such a way as to require its own separate discussion. It's also a case of the "a category for every concept" rationale, which keeps getting in the way no matter how many times I disprove it as a general rule. Help me sort this out, Hutch :). Dahn (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to be a jerk and underline one word: "no matter how many times *I* disprove it as a general rule". :-) IMHO, it's a case of "no category until Dahn approves it, and since Dahn doesn't bother reading about entire areas..." If things look a certain way from Dahn's chair, doesn't mean that's how they are. Not to mention his language in his arguments which is very pro-Sovietly spiced. Personally, I would consider finding a middle solution on the "Soviet era" aspect (in fact I know one already). But unfortunately that's futile. He would reject anything that comes out of my keyboard. And he never proposes anything specific. Just rejects what others propose. Very self-convinient. It takes titanic efforts to remind him of that. Dc76\^talk 14:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, how about a gentlemen agreement: let's pause (not stop, just pause) to allow Biruitorul to catch up? Dc76\^talk 14:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, Dc and I sit down for a little chat.

In a way it is "no category until Dahn approves it", and there really isn't a real issue: yes, it's best if you run through the alternatives with one of us (be it me), and troubleshoot your options, since all of us creating or sorting articles in a huge subject area will have to work with from now on. That you would still be invoking that as a flaw after you yourself called Biruitorul (Biruitorul as well) to the discussion, and in answer to me stating, plainly, that the discussion will need at least one other user giving input, is to me another proof that there is a factual problem of communication between me and you, Dc, that something always tends to get lost in your prejudice about what I may be saying.

"And he never proposes anything specific." You keep repeating that, presumably because you find it very hard to imagine that your reflex of creating a special (sub)category for every single concept that crosses your mind can be impractical, and that the alternatives I suggested (and keep suggesting, whether you read or not) are still viable if they don't do the same.

"Not to mention his language in his arguments which is very pro-Sovietly spiced." - You see, it's precisely this kind of blockage (baiting?) which I have to deal with, smack-bang willy-nilly in the middle of a discussion about practical alternatives. What's more amazing is that Dc has repeatedly interpreted my comments to read like I'm using the same kind of rationale, which only shows how entrenched this stuff is.

"Just rejects what others propose. Very self-convinient. It takes titanic efforts to remind him of that." For now, Dc, you're the one who's holding all others at ransom by creating an entire category tree in your image for the history of some three countries. If you want to discuss my self-aggrandizing (which is what I presume you meant), bear that in mind. Otherwise, if your tactic in conversations is to ruin my self-confidence, we really have a problem...

Anyway, I'm not pushing anyone into anything, though I'm sure Biruitorul has reviewed at least part of the past discussion, since he already replied on my talk page. But, sure, there's no rush, and none should be implied by the fact that I reply here. We can all (you, me, Biruitorul and Illythr) pick up on these things as our schedules permit it, and me replying here is no call for any of you to even take the things I say into consideration right away. Dahn (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, now that Biruitorul is around you dropped you Soviet-spiced language and blame me for repeating it in vain. It is you, not me, who uses provocative expressions smack-bang willy-nilly in the middle of a discussion about practical alternatives. And you don't have the decency to retract them. It only gives me one alternative: you believe in them, or at least want to promote them here. You could resolve this in one line if you wish. But you don't. You, not me, entrench. I am offering a hand on the right and one on the left, and one in front, but you reject them all. And worse, blame me for entrenchment.

all of us creating or sorting articles in a huge subject area will have to work with from now on - yeah, sure, you will create articles about Moldova and Bessarabia. Tell this story to little children. You have a point to make, to prevent me from editing in that area. That's the only explanation I see for your entrenchment in that area.

I do not propose categories for "every single concept that crosses my mind". PLease do look more carefully here. There are no little concepts, there is a coherent plan, to which you only had one objection: Phanariots. Let me also remark that the moment you saw I was about to conceed on that, and all that was required from you was to explain how are we going to separate people from everything else, you took a step back, and choose to not reply to that any more. Who is entrenched? I throw both my hands forward, and you immediately dig a whole and cover your ears.

My tactic is to make you aware of existing issues which you all so quickly choose to ignore, and worse: complain and attack full throttle when others look into the issues you ignored. Bear in mind, I undid many of categories I created to come forward to reach an agreement if you. Every good point you made, I immediately acted upon it. Every good point I made you ignore.

We can all (you, me, Biruitorul and Illythr) pick up on these things as our schedules permit it - ok, this does make sense. I hoped, however, that somehow we might have be able to move forward on something at least. Not necessary something implementable, but at least a basic agreement we can build on later. But that requires desire to reach such an agreement from all editors. Dc76\^talk 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sure, now that Biruitorul is around you dropped you Soviet-spiced language and blame me for repeating it in vain. It is you, not me, who uses provocative expressions smack-bang willy-nilly in the middle of a discussion about practical alternatives." Sometimes, Dc, I have to wonder about how old you are, because these lines read like you're twelve. And, no, I'm not talking about "provocative expressions", which one could stretch to mean anything, means, I'm talking about: a) you using inflammatory political labels to label ideas you won't digest (won't digest for a reason that is beyond me), and creating yourself, yet again, an indecent strawman; b) your equally inflammatory and unsubstantiated claim that I would have done the same. For the idea that I've "changed" my arguments (another absurdity in itself), and the implicit claim that I would have done so to hide my real agenda from Biruitorul, its exceptionally unreasonable: one one hand, it reads like a fairy tale ("every time the man closed his eyes, the elves were dancing all over the place, but made sure to disappear just before he opened theme"), but those supposed "Stalinist" arguments could be picked up from your talk page at any given time, in the absurd case you're right.

As for the articles you think I can't or won't create (even if I did), I'll leave you some more time to mull over my exact statement - it touched on the use of categories and on the Romanian-themed categories as well. It's this selective replying of yours that is testing the limits of human patience.

And, for the love of me, Dc, just because I state one objection don't mean I have one objection. As you can plainly read and deduce from my comments there, I stated the same objection to the "centuries" categories that I had stated for the other categories above on that page, mutatis mutandis. I expected you to understand that, since I object to a special "Early Modern Transylvania" and whatnot, you would also use the powers of deduction to understand that it also applies to "17th century in Transylvania" as well. And, in general, just because I only chose to touch one subject at a time (which I did out of courtesy, since you had not replied to my earlier points, yet alone seemed to acknowledge them, the reasonable expectation being that you were still thinking about them), just because I don't always list all the problems I see in one go (and elsewhere you were claiming I had been wrong to do exactly that - damned if I do, damned if I don't), just because I don't have the energy to spend on all details at the same time, doesn't mean I support whatever I don't object to.

And when I'll see a good point you make in this discussion, I'll let you know so myself. Dahn (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You repeated twice "Romanian occupation of Bukovina". What if I were to write and article "Romanian occupation of Wallachia" (May 1918). You shouldn't play with such expressions. They do read like expression "Occupation of Orleans by Joan of Arc" or "Holocaust myth". You shouldn't expect people to react lightly to them. You had many occasions to say you did not mean them in the sense you meant them (as provocations). Why didn't you? It would have taken you one line, and end of story.

It's this selective replying of yours that is testing the limits of human patience. - please understand, that was the only way i could make you aware that you use pro-Soviet language. That was the main reason i resorted to extracts. Without that language, I might have been more inclined to not cite you. At least, you could question me then. What tests the limits of my human endurance is your refusal to refute pro-Soviet terminology. Nothing more, just this aspect. I can deal with your stubbornness: yours is an intelligent one. But the pro-Soviet terminology exasperated me. Please understand this aspect.

I did not say you changed your arguments. I said you changed your language (no more provocative expressions).

You used many times "Romanian irredenta" against me. They can be just as easily picked up from the talk pages. Why don't we simply withdraw them explicitely?

damned if I do, damned if I don't - :) Only if Dahn approves turned into only if Dc approves. :-)

I cannot understand the reason for rejecting "17th century in Transylvania" since those articles would never be admitted into "17th century in Romania". You negated something (for sustainable reasons), but (your proposal) created another (bigger, imho) problem. Dc76\^talk 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

and Less is more

I trust you all know what you are talking about, but can someone please make all of the above a bit less impenetrable for the rest of us? Mult'umesc foarte mult. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. We got too entangled. Try this, and read only what Biruitorul says, and if necessary read what others reply. If you read what others write not in reply to Biruitorul, most probably it won't make any sense. Dc76\^talk 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hungarian Autonomous Region

Hi! I've moved the page back, although there was actually nothing preventing you from reverting the page move yourself (the page was not protected and the destination page was a simple redirect). However, I suggest discussing the page title on the talk page before the issue becomes a move war. This is especially true since the "consensus" last time consisted of just your proposal and nine days of WP:SILENCE. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think further moving back and forth would be pointless (it's always the wrong version for someone). Rather, try to discuss the matter with the editor on the talk page. I'm sure Rgvis is open to listening to reason, and he has already posted his reasoning on the talk page. If you can't find an agreement, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Be sure to let me know if you have any problems. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Despre ER

Salut. Deoarece am vazut ca existe discutii pe wikipedia despre proiectul ER (nu inteleg de ce ar fi?) vreau sa aduc cateva lamuriri.

1. proiectul ER e un proiect independent de wikipedia, sper ca asta e clar
2. nu ne-am propus sa fim in niciun fel, nici antinationalisti, nici nationalisti, in general nici pro nici contra la nimic - ci sa scriem dupa surse; ca uneori apar erori sau scapari e altceva
3. orice vizitator e bine venit pe ER, inclusiv voi de pe wikipedia; daca ce vedeti acolo nu e bine scris (sau chiar prost scris), daca exista erori, puteti sa dati un e-mail cu problemele observate, iar daca consideram necesar (daca exista surse etc) facem modificarile de rigoare; asta asteptam de la orice vizitator al sitului nostru; daca nu doriti sa faceti asta nu e nicio problema, pur si simplu igonarati-ne; exista atatea situri in internet, puteti consulta altele nu e nicio suparare
4. proiectul ER este un proiect particular pe banii celor care l-au infiintat (inclusiv ai mei), prin urmare nu prea avem a da seama nimanui despre ce si cum facem; din perspectiva asta nu inteleg ce cauta numele proiectului prin diverse discutii ca asta
5. nu vreau sa acuz pe nimeni de nimic, dar nu cred ca ar fi normal sa ajung la concluzia ca wikipedia este folosita de catre unii wikipedisti pentru a denigra alte situri; daca asa stau lucrurile am sa cer opinia wikimedia in acest caz;
6. despre licentierea materialului vedeti aici (spun asta pt ca a fost o neintelegere recenta, care s-a rezolvat fara prea multa zarva)
7. repet pentru a fi cat mai clar, nu vrem dispute, certuri, sicanari etc. nici cu voi romanii de pe en.wikipedia, nici cu altcineva; ER este un proiect care nu are nevoie de aprobarea nimanui sa existe (cu atat mai putin a unor anonimi); celor care considera ca articolele noastre sunt proaste le uram sanatate si putere sa scrie altele mai bune, iar pe noi sa ne ignore; va cer mult daca va rog sa ignorati ER daca nu va convine? eu cred ca sunt rezonabil. va multumesc si va urez putere/timp/resurse sa scrieti articole la fel de bune ca pe ER sau mai bune, asta in cazul le considerati pe ale noastre proaste Mihai@ER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.225.51 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"fara prea multa zarva" este atunci cand ii scrii un email cuiva si-i spui ce nu-ti place si ceri sa fie amendat ceva. Cand torni gazolina in foc nu se numeste "fara prea multa zarva". Si in plus, romanii de pe en.wiki nu sunt organizati formal in nici un fel. Ar fi bine sa vorbiti despre indivizi concreti si actiuni concrete care nu va plac si sa nu faceti generalizari interpretabile. Dc76\^talk 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estrojam's Decibelle Music and Culture Festival

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estrojam's Decibelle Music and Culture Festival. I was able to find some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories

May I ask you to look over this plan, and tell if you see any major objections. By all means future corrections can be made and I would undertake to do them if other people prefer other tasks than cats. But if you see an obvious problem with the new proposal, which can be taken care right now with ease, it would help save time and effort in the future. I would like to do some changes to the existing paradigm, because I do understand its shortcomings, and do not want to have this task in such poor state hanging over me. Dc76\^talk 10:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clerk warning

Your recent comment on an Arbcom page was nothing other than an attempt to discredit another editor. This is a breach of the rules of behaviour that have been repeatedly laid down at those pages. A further breach (of any kind) will result in a topic-ban from ALL pages related to the EEML case. Manning (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Armenian Apostolic churches in Russia

Thank you.--Hovik95 (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

New article requests

Regardless of whether Lucian Croitoru Cobinet would be approved or not by the Parliament, the following six names would need articles:

• Emerich Florin Şaghy, fost consilier în cadrul Ministerului Afacerilor Externe
• Bogdan Aurescu, considerat unul dintre cei mai promiţători diplomaţi din noul val. De numele acestuia se leaga succesul diplomatic înregistrat de România la Curtea Internaţionale de Justiţie de la Haga în diferentul cu Ucraina pentru stabilirea platoului continental din Marea Neagră. Aurescu a fost secretar de stat în guvernele Boc. Are 36 de ani.
• Daniel Funeriu, fost europarlamentar până în vara acestui an şi este fostul vicepreşedinte al Comisiei Miclea de la Cotroceni. Nu a mai prins un loc eligibil pe lista pentru europarlamentare, fiind plasat doar al optsprezecelea. Funeriu are 38 de ani, este căsătorit, iar de profesie inginer chimist.
• Adrian Rădulescu, preşedintele Ligii Asociaţiilor Producătorilor Agricoli
• Mihai Şeitan, fost consilier al premierului Emil Boc, fost preşedinte al Casei de Pensii şi este considerat părintele sistemului de pensii private din România
• Cristian Vlădescu, preşedintele Comisiei prezidenţiale pentru analiza şi elaborarea politicii din domeniul sănătăţii publice şi fost preşedinte al Casei Naţionale de Asigurări de Sănătate.

(Sourse: http://www.realitatea.net/cine-sunt-noii-ministri-ai-cabinetului-croitoru_647422.html)

I cannot but remark that there is only one unnecessary ministry in the proposed Cabinet: Lucian Blaga's: Regional Development half should go to Economy, and Tourism half should go with Culture.

"Also, hasn't Lucian Blaga been dead for 48 years?" - :-):-):-) Now, the mistake is not there.

I believe that Şaghy, Şeitan and Vlădescu are notable enough to warrant articles. Rădulescu would need, probably, only if he would be minister. What Croitoru knows, and what everybody knows, is that many members of the PSD and PNL would vote for his Cabinet if not for the terror regime in PSD and PNL nowadays. UDMR would be in the winner boat, regardless who is the winner.

About Ukraine, I believe that Romania should try to achieve a status of official regional language for the Romanian alongside Ukrainian in the Chernivtsi Oblast, without any special autonomy status for the region. Similarly, I wouldn't oppose the same for Harghita and Covasna: just the language, but no autonomy. The utopian character of the thoughts and words of some Ukrainian politicians is a proof that they don't have a clear idea what is going on in their own country. Most of them act out of nostalgie, be it for the Soviet or other times. Dc76\^talk 19:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Now honestly, Aurescu, Funeriu and Şeitan are people about which I have heard before. The other three I did not know until today. Dc76\^talk 19:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)