User talk:Dahn/Archive 25

Orthodox Church in America Romanian Episcopate

My source for saying it is a former episcopate is http://orthodoxwiki.org/Romanian_Orthodox_Episcopate_of_America_%28OCA%29. Also, the Episcopate's own site (http://www.roea.org/) makes no mention of being under the Romanian Church. I went to http://www.clipa.com/pagreligie644.htm, but as I cannot read Romanian I can't tell what it says. Any chance you're actually thinking instead of the Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese of America and Canada? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PCF members

Salut Dahn! bonne année OO7 :) ! dis-moi, j'entends bien ton objection à la création de cette catégorie, trop vague à ton goût. Il faudrait alors créer une catégorie "Dead members", et une autre pour des gars comme Alexandre Adler (surprenant de le trouver dans la catégorie PCF members simplement parce qu'il y était membre, comme tant d'autres, dans les années 1970... Il a depuis viré néoconservateur, ce qui est tout de même assez rare en France, même pour un soixante-huitard!) Autre chose: j'ai initié une liste des bases de l'OTAN à mon avis pas inintéressante. Peut-être pourrais-tu aider à la compléter? Sinon, bien triste nouvelle que ce "Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty" - Bruno Gollnisch vient d'être condamné pour révisionnisme, je me demande si c'est déjà dans l'article? A + Tazmaniacs 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenopol is not equal Xenophobia

Listen buddy, cite a valid source, fix the link, or leave your biased crap out of articles. I'm hereby warning you, and I have already made an admin aware of several edit-warring problems you've had. Glad I havent used my id since you seem like that kind that goes and erases whatever doesn't conform to your opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.68.152.82 (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Pictures

I was just joking because I didn't think it was common to post pictures takes from police files. My relations with the Romanian police are not that close, be it only because I am American. But I will make the apropriate note, just to keep everybody happy. I'll do it tomorrow.

Afil 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'46

Great article, but a couple of points: should vote percentages be included in the template? What was the parliament called - simply Parlamentul României, or Camera Deputaţilor? Finally, what electoral system was used - proportional, single-member districts, or something else? As for photographs, I think there's one in the Tismăneanu book with someone holding up a sign that reads "Votaţi lista cu soarele"; might any others be available?

By the way, have you seen this stuff? Maybe some of it's a little speculative, but it's more entertaining than usual, and besides, the number of "sudden deaths" in Romanian politics always struck me as a bit high. Biruitorul 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done them, based on Ştefan: BPD 68.7, PNŢ 12.7, UPM 8.2, PNL 3.7, Lupu 2.3, Ind 4.4; seats (assuming 0 Ind): BPD 84.1, PNŢ 7.7, UPM 7, PNL 0.72, Lupu 0.48, Ind 0. Biruitorul 22:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a great article on Tămădău Mare - almost FA-class, in fact. If it's that Tămădău, which it may well be, then we can link to it from the appropriate articles. Biruitorul 04:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently the only other Tămădău in Romania is Tămădău Mic, also in Călăraşi County, and we do know that the Mihalache Tămădău was 46km from Bucharest, which seems about right based on this map. However, I suppose there's a chance the airport was in Tămădău Mic, so maybe we should hold off linking until further confirmation. I do have the phone number of the mayor of Tămădău Mare, so perhaps he'd know if I called him up. Regardless, I'll be nominating this one - I crave the reflected glory of the author. Biruitorul 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Transylvania with Romania

User_talk:Mentatus#Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania :Dc76 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenopol & Dacodava

Protected n' blocked. Khoi khoi 08:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome!

BTW, check out what checkuser can reveal... Khoi khoi 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alegeri1946.png

Hi,

I saw the image illustration for Romanian general election, 1946 article. The image is inspired from the same source as Image:Romania 1930, Administrative Map.svg. From that SVG I compose a similar map, wich I hope has a better quality. I would kindly ask your permition to update the image mentioned in subject (from Commons WikiPedia), with this one ro:Imagine:Romania 1946 alegeri.png. Thank you in advance. Cornel Ilie – my talk 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for permition. I hope that also a SVG version would be available tonight, I work on that now. Then I will upload both of them (PNG and SVG maps) to Wikimedia Commons. I also pay attention to boundary issue notice by Biruitorul: here or here. Cheers, Cornel Ilie – my talk 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think it's much better. Here or here the 1946 borders are highlighted with respect to Romania territory (dark blue) and Dorohoi, Rădăuţi and Tulcea counties (in yellow). Ţinutul Herţa was part of Dorohoi County, and part of Northen half of Bucovina was part of Rădăuţi County. There were alos parts from Tulcea County that became part of USSR. Cornel Ilie – my talk 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Romanian general election, 1946, was selected for DYK!

On January 25, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Romanian general election, 1946, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 15:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help in edit war

Can I ask your help in the poll to dirime this edit war at Castelseprio (see talk:Castelseprio)? I've stumbled in somebody with awful style layout, nad probably one of those guys getting stuck like children in their version of any article. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! Thanks a lot for help, really. From what I saw so far, you look as a perfectly equilibrated wikipedian. Hope things will go well with your articles, here's full of childish people sticking to their personal vision and, above all, totally deprived of any objectivity. If I can help, tell me. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getae

As you haven't dropped a line there for a while now, it is not clear to me if your objection stands. If it does, I want to start other procedures - survey, mediation, even RfA. Daizus 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first and last message from you I allow on my talk page, Daizus (reciprocity obliges). In case you could not read it there, the objection will stand for as long as the text features that piece of OR. As it should. I was not aware I should keep posting on that page for you to become aware of that - you may enjoy repeating and showcasing your sophistry, but I'm quite tired of the chorus. Dahn 08:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 30 2007 to Getae

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours (since your reporter described you as excellent; otherwise it would have been 24h). William M. Connolley 09:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you on the grounds that the page is protected William M. Connolley 11:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]