User talk:Vintila Barbu

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Vlad 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut! Mulţumesc şi eu pentru mesaj şi nu ezitaţi să mă contactaţi dacă aveţi vreo problemă, nedumerire sau întrebare! --Vlad 12:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apăi să nu vă faceţi griji din asta, doar sunteţi la Wikipedia în limba engleză. Puteţi să fiţi sigur că orice veţi scrie, va fi cineva vorbitor nativ, care va corecta dacă este cazul. Problema este că există vorbitori de engleză britanică, engleză americană, engleză australiană etc. deci fiecare va corecta după cum este obişnuit. Apoi mai există români plecaţi sau care vorbesc engleză la un nivel foarte bun, aproape de vorbitorii nativi sau profesional. Poate îi puteţi scrie lui Dahn, este singurul de până acum pe care să-l "cunosc" care să vorbească engleza la nivel profesiona sau Ronline dar el e destul de ocupat cu treburi administrative (de mediere); altcineva foarte bun este Jmabel un american care a petrecut ceva timp în România şi a prins drag de România: vorbeşte şi scrie româneşte, fiind vorbitor nativ de engleză. --Vlad|-> 12:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulţumesc, asemenea! :) --Vlad|-> 13:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad, I find "a prins drag de România" a bit strong, but, yes, I'm always glad to help translate.

Vintila, welcome, and thank you for your friendly remarks on my talk page. As you can see, in the article on Tănase, I came about as close as I could to simply reciting your version of the events (and I'll add your recent remarks about the film). As I think you understand, most blogs, forums, and personal web sites cannot be cited the same way we can cite a published book, an official statement, or a peer-reviewed paper. So the most we can do is cite it, indicating where we got it, and say that it "has the ring of truth". (Indeed, some would say that is more than we should do, but in this case I think it was defensible.)

Anyway, I hope you stick around. Do remember that when writing encyclopedia articles, it is strongly recommended to cite one's sources clearly. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know: if you add a link to Portal:Romania/New article announcements, your article will be checked. No need do contact a particular individual to do the job. - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pashaluk issue

Please note that it is not my "deduction" or "educated guess". It is specified in the Stefanescu source I have referenced on precisely that page, and it is also becked by Djuvara in a comment about a later situation (the establishment of Phanariotes as mid-way between the options of letting the countries go by sheer force of the Austrians and Russians and turning them into pashaluks). In fact, this is obvious to anyone vaguely familiar with the topic at hand, and can be found in countless other comments - let me just point out those made by Gheorghe I. Bratianu in his "Sfatul boiresc..." and Petre P. Panaitscu in "De ce nu au cucerit turcii tarile romane?". I don't know what sort of "sensibilities" this comment hurts, and I have little patience to deal with them. Dahn 16:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your point, but you misinterpreted me. The details of the expedition show that this was the plan - I did not want to clog the text with, for example, the name of the pasha charged with military occupation (it is likely to never be an article, and is probably the same one for a hundred altogether different pashas :)). I will see how I could rephrase that, but I need to have references in front of me (I'm not near them at the moment). The question is: if I introduce details that would point out that was the plan (according to at least one historian), would you agree with the text? Dahn 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin Tănase‎

[1] Very interesting; it has been interesting watching this item slowly move toward accuracy. I'm afraid I'm guilty of the original, wrong version; I've never seen the film and made the (incorrect) assumption that a non-Wikipedian Romanian correspondent had given me accurate information. By the way, isn't it also possible that "Caratase" could be a combination of "Cărăbuş" and "Tănase"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islam in Romania

Have the curtesy of replying, please. Note that the version you keep reverting to is sub-standard, inaccurate, and POV. Among my objections is a call for evidence to back an edit which only you seem to support: you have not been providing it. Dahn 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 7 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ceauşima, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 18:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLOMR

Bună. Cu toate că am avut aceeaşi sursă pentru articol, eu am observat doar acum cât de mult semăna textul cu sursele. Te rog să nu mai preiei ad literam pe viitor, pentru că atragi suspiciunea de plagiat, şi e păcat pentru articolele în cauză. Mulţumesc. (Mă scuzi pentru îndrăzneala de a tutui: o fac în credinţa că nici tu nu te vei formaliza). Dahn 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know?

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

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Mulţumesc frumos pentru sprijinul şi comentariile dvs. Le apreciez foarte tare. Biruitorul 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

On 4 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peştera cu Oase, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gregor von Rezzori , which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Yomangani ^talk 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello Vintila, keep up the great Romanian cultural contribs ! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 19, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Piteşti prison, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Many thanks again Vintila. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My warning

Hi. You will excuse me, but I have to put it bluntly: I have corrected scores of entries created by you, and am by now more tan acquainted with your grammar; on another occasion, you have admitted to have copied text in order to override your own problems in expressing yourself in English. The text was, however, flawless. Its style was also similar to that of books published on the matter.

Contributing plagiarized material is scandalous. Dahn 13:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vintila, I'm concerned about this, too. If the material was taken from somewhere else without acknowledgment, would you please say so and either explain how we have the right to use it, or remove it if we do not? Similarly for your other contributions. Plagiarized material tends to weaken rather than strengthens Wikipedia. If the material is copyrighted material for which we do not have adequate permissions, it does worse than that: it leaves us potentially subject to being sued.

On the other hand, if this material was yours, I'd appreciate knowing how come you sometimes write absolutely flawless English and then at other times, while certainly fluent, you are clearly non-native. - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vintila, I've started an RFC (Request for comment) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vintila Barbu. I hope this all proves to be a misunderstanding, but I think it needs to be aired. My intent is not adversarial, but I think this is better hashed out in a slightly more public forum, where other people can weigh in, including in your defense. - Jmabel | Talk 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the reply: in the SLOMR, I had bumped into a text that you had copied without crediting anything or without accounting in any reasonable way for your action. I had seen the text which you had transferred to wikipedia. You had admitted to it in some way, but this would still be the elegant way to consider the point; I could have simply produced the text that you had copied, for others to see. Instead, I thought that I could persuade you not to do it again. This is in answer to points 1 and 4, which are actually one and the same. The rest of the points makes no sense in the argument, since it relies on a theory that I had not seen you doing it before.

Also note that, in this case as well, I had also simply explained why I thought it was a priority for the text to be rephrased, and not "attacked" or, as you say, "confronted" you about it. Nevertheless, you persisted, and reintroduced text that you are unlikely to have ever written, which was partly redundant, and very under-referenced.

I see nothing worth apologizing for on my part. Dahn 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the one side you claim having seen a text which I allegedly copied into the SLOMR article, on the other side you’re trying to justify nthe fact that you don't produce this text. I prompt you to produce this text. As long as you don't, your accusation is but slander.

As for the Piteşti prison, you outclassed yourself. Since I intended to create myself such an entry, bumping into your art was a pleasant surprise. However, I noticed that the section called “Stages…” did actually mention none. This was the reason of my edits: to provide the article with essential informations about the four stages of "re-education". After improving the article, I searched and found a clue which made your article appropriate for DYK. Immediately, I nominated the entry for DYK. Thus, I did my very best to improve and promote “your” article. The violence of your reaction was exceeded only by its absurdity: removing my edits and insulting me. (However, you didn’t remove my sentence which made the article apt for DYK !)

Subsequently, you persevered spreading infamies and slandering me.

This is the summary up to now.

Don’t think that I feel affected by all this. Rather amused.

The only sad thing is your behaviour: you really seem to have problems in relating to others. What about relaxing ?! Nobody wants to harm you.

--Vintila Barbu 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what is going on here. Dahn has made an accusation. I have no particular reason to think he's right, but when I tried to clear things up you responded with musings and with comments on Dahn's conduct, but did not actually deny the charge of plagiarism. So I started an RFC, hoping to clarify the matter, and you seem to be ignoring that.

Vintila: presuming you didn't plagiarize, why won't you simply assert, "No, I haven't used any sources without acknowledging them. What I wrote at Piteşti prison was my own original work. Here are the sources I used: you can see that the content is there, and that the wording is my own." But I haven't heard that from you: all I have heard is the proverbial "non-denial denial". As long as that is all you will say, I have to take seriously the possibility that Dahn may be right. As I think I've been clear from the outset, I hope he is entirely wrong, but your refusal to respond directly is far more suspicious to me than anything that preceded it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby ensure that I haven't used any sources without acknowledging them. What I wrote at Piteşti prison was my own original work. Here are the sources I used: Bacu you can see that the content is there, and that the wording is my own. --Vintila Barbu 09:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I must confess that I really have problems in keeping presuming good faith in my counterparts in this story.

However, I’ll try one last time.

There are things that are much more important to me that any wiki or so. Hereunder is justice. There are principles of justice upon which no compromise is possible:

there is no charge without proofs
nobody has to justify his acts or defend himself without previous and well-founded accusation

The charges against me (plagiarism) were but constructions founding on absurd and weird speculations, started by Dahn out of reasons I rather wouldn’t discuss now, and nourished by you on my silence, in a circular process of self-fulfilling suspicion.

For me, this situation is clear: since there is no reasonable charge, I will never justify or defend myself against this. I will not feed a farce.

Against this background, take my formal refutation of your accusation, worded exactly as you suggested, as a very special gesture of good will, since I still persist believing that good faith will prevail.

(Besides: I had already issued a statement of non plagiarism on your talk page, in bold letters and very clear terms. This was the second and last one.)

I am ready to talk with you about this story, about the causes and mechanisms which led to an escalation, and about ways to prevent this in future. I am not ready to talk with anybody from the position of an indicted who has to justify and defend himself.

Sincerely, --Vintila Barbu 11:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take the liberty of linking to your remarks here from the RFC; I won't put them in "your" section, since you have obviously chosen not to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 03:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing

I suppose the warnings at your map were placed automatically because you hadn't chosen any licence. I fixed the problem by declaring the map as having a double GNU + Creative Commons licence. If you prefer other licensing please edit the page and replace the template I inserted. Cheers. — AdiJapan ☎ 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Romanian anti-communist resistance movement, was selected for DYK!

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Romanian anti-communist resistance movement, 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 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:The meaning of "most enduring"

I'd suggest keeping 'one of the most' in the lead, to avoid confusion, and describing what you told me in more detail in the article. Remember that per WP:LEAD, lead should only summarize the main article - yet currently the lead contains claims and fact that are not repeated in the aricle (like the death of last partisan). You may also want to reply those issues on talk of the article, this can be an interesting article. And let me commend you on this very interesting article! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Her we go. Deleting referenced information is considered wp:vandalism. Continue and you may be blocked from editing wikipedia. Dahn 14:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintila, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that Dahn is a vandal. He reverts as a habit and it is terribly unpleasant to work with him. He erased my complaints on his page (obviously he is self-conscious about his disruptive attitude). Please ignore his whining and keep up the good work. (Icar 14:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Getae

I left Daizus a note on his talk page. Maybe you would like to read it. Dpotop 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, did my part in all conscience (see my edits) --Vintila Barbu 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I already had him blocked for several hours on 3RR on similar grounds, and it's easy. Posting a 3RR now is a bit more difficult (you will have to point that those changes are indeed reverts, even though he changed one or two words). But you should do it, if you have the time to write it (I don't right now). I don't understand why Dahn does this. What bothers me most is that he does not edit himself, waiting for you to find what is an acceptable POV for him. This should be pointed out. Dpotop 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, but...

Thanks for your message, I understand what you mean, but this time I got pissed. I made two changes in total 4 words where changed and they were for the better as other people acknowledged, but I still had to suffer an assault from Dahn and accusation of trolling, Volkism, veiled anti-Semitism, pure projection, etc. That for only 2 small changes that were not incorrect and improved the article in my view and others. Having to explain such changes over and over again and having to stand Dahn's accusations is not a pleasant way to contribute, that's all. I don't know the history between Icar and Dahn, but I can only understand and support Icar if Dahn behaved with him like it did with me. -- AdrianTM 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite bothered by Dahn's hatred of all things Romanian. Readers may believe, after reading Dahn, that the NKVD generals Nicolschi and Pantiusa were actually Romanian. This is unacceptable, along with his persistent whitewashing of the Communist leaders. As for his personal style, it is my experience that Dahn reverts Everything I write. I will post a 3RR complaint. What else can be done? (Icar 20:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do you see what's going on on Alexandru Nicolschi article? How people revert our changes without explanations or with explanations that don't apply like "he was Romanian" First of all that's not the point that paragraph didn't say he wasn't Romanian it just said he was a NKVD general which is true. Second of all I'll let you judge how Romanian was a guy who was born as Russian subject into a Jewish family and had to learn Romanian (and by the way I heard him he never spoke it very well, which is of course somewhat irrelevant to establish his ethnicity/nationality but it bothers me that "he was Romanian" is brought as a serious argument to revert our changes). -- AdrianTM 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofronie of Cioara article

Hi, I'm glad you like the article. I'm afraid I don't know much about the Template talk:Did you know. As for the date when Sofronie was canonized, it is already in the article's infox. He was canonized on 21 October 1955 in Alba Iulia. Alexrap 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Hi, Vintila. It is considered as a serious personal attack to label good faith edits as vandalism. Please in future avoid summaries like this. Alex Bakharev 00:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vintila. I cannot help but notice that in the last week you have undone quite a number of edits of User:Dahn see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. I want to warn you that we have a policy WP:STALK that forbids following good faith edits of a user intended to harass him or her. Please stop following Dahn. It is usually quite difficult to prove that stalking is taking place and we are assuming good faith, etc. But then the stalking becomes obvious the blocks can be quite longish. If you are acting in good faith please take my apologies, but anyway try to act so not to create appearance of stalking. Alex Bakharev 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 27 February, 2007, a fact from the article Sofronie of Cioara, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani ^talk 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valter Roman

I guess we should have done it in private. :) Dpotop 20:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulamentul Organic

I have reached that article reading Djuvara's book this evening. It's in my intention to improve the article, not ruin it. So please do not tag it unless you make a case. Because it's a featured article and it would be good to remain as such. Daizus 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More, I see for the moment Dahn is cooperative and understanding. So it may happen that the conflicts for those two paragraphs end tonight with a hopefully improved outcome - less vague and sourced claims. Daizus 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted maps

Well, last time was easy, but thanks for remembering me. :-)

Regarding the new copyright problem, it all depends on the licences of the two original maps you plan on using. If they are in the public domain or otherwise free to use, then the new map is all yours and you can do with it whatever you want. But I'm afraid you asked the question precisely because this is not the case, right? The combination of the two maps is what we call a derivative work, and the painful truth is that you cannot release it under a free licence if any of the original maps are copyrighted. Take this example: A translated book is a new work, having its own copyright, but the translator can only publish it if the copyright owner of the original book agrees.

I cannot think of any good advice. Finding free maps is hard, as even old maps from Ceauşescu's time are probably still copyrighted. (You might want to check though. The Communist copyright law from 1956 is here, and it was only replaced in 1996 by this law. If a work's copyright term expired before 1996 then the work is now in the public domain.)

Making good maps is also hard. What you could do is draw a simplified map. The good news is that while maps can be copyrighted, pure data (such as geographic data) cannot, so you could "extract" information from those copyrighted maps and use it for your own. The time you need for such work depends of course on the amunt of detail you need in the map and the tools you use. Good luck. — AdiJapan ☎ 13:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Goma

Thanks for corrections. Why didn't you want to make the corrections yourself? -- AdrianTM 13:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what DYK is... but it sounds good. Thanks. :-) -- AdrianTM 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Feel free to add or copyedit anything, I think I finished the major edits that I had for that page. -- AdrianTM 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

Did you know? was updated. On 10 March, 2007, a fact from the article Paul Goma, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Principalities

Hi Vintilă,

I was thinking of improving this article especially in showing why the principalities are to be taken together (i.e. it's not just a historiographical nationalistic mood). Your notes already point to that but I think it's room for more.

One delicate issue is the union and the attempts of union. The article on Michael the Brave anyway doesn't make this point as it should, at this moment the article notes only: "Michael the Brave's rule, with its break with Ottoman rule, tense relations with other European powers and with the union of the three states, was considered in following periods as the precursor of a modern Romania - a thesis which was argued with noted intensity by Nicolae Bălcescu (and became a point of reference for nationalists, as well as a catalysis of various Romanian forces in order to achieve a single Romanian state).".

These are usually regarded as nationalistic (sometimes Communist) history, refuted with arguments like before 19th century people didn't care about common language/identity (the conflicts between Stephen the Great and Vlad III Ţepeş or between Matei Basarab and Vasile Lupu are often invoked to show Wallachians and Moldavians didn't care about unity or common ethnicity, yet many other periods of the history are ignored and Michael the Brave is considered the one and only who attempted to unify the principalities, and perhaps that's why too, he's rather considered a mercenary than a man of vision (I personally tend to beleive he was a bit of both).

This already looks like a thesis, but it's no WP:OR. You can check "Unele consideraţii privitoare la planul dacic al lui Mihai Viteazul" ("Dacia" here is no modern created anachronism, it is a term used by the humanists and the diplomacy of those times - i.e. 16th-17th century - for the three provinces - see the letter of Giovan Andrea Gromo from 1566 mentioning Sigismund Zápolya's plans to conquer the entire Dacia, having Transylvania and the territories ruled at that time by the Alexandru the Moldavian and Pătraşcu the Wallachian) by Gheorghe Pungă which I have it in a book of medieval studies published at Iaşi in 1999 or some articles in Magazin Istoric: "Aceiaşi domnitori în Moldova şi Ţara Românească" by Constantin Rezachevici (the issue from April, 1979) - leaving aside the ideological framework of those times it provides many interesting factoids for 15-17th centuries, or another article on the some unification attempts from 17th century but at this moment I can't find it (it was published sometime in the last 5 years or so).

I am writing here to find out if you have thought or have planned to do that, if you agree with that, and how to schedule this on my "to do" list.

Best regards, Daizus 10:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I disagree with some of your views, you are right grosso modo. Romanian Principalities is a modern term attempting to reflect a perspective of those times and its article must show that. Anyway, it's a work of large synthesis and we must step carefully between the points of view and preserve a degree of lucidity. Daizus 15:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I try to build something in the battle of Rovine page. With the sources I've gathered, I have a relatively decent view on its historiography and I have materials to attempt to shape the controversies. One of the nicely written materials I've found online is this one. Daizus 15:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps sometimes the reason is this "patriotism", but particularly I called for lucidity in face of broad generalizations. E.g. "Dacia" (the territory it represented) was not always a "geo-political" area (perhaps you didn't insinuate it, but some people may understand that way), the Ottoman treatement of the two Principalities was not identical, the homogenity must be confronted with the diversity - for instance, Transylvania, whatever the majoritarian ethnicity/religion was, was perceived in many occasions as a Catholic (Christian) land as its rulers were as such, while the other two principalities as Orthodox (Schismatic; though when facing external perils, like the Ottomans, the common Christian belief was invoked). Daizus 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had read your text assuming some of its ideas could make it to the article. Thank you for your answers. Daizus 05:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin Tănase

Interesting story! As they say, what goes around, comes around. Along the way, though, things can get a bit distorted (like in "telefonul fără fir"), though... Yes, it may be instructive to hear from that journalist where she got her story from, but, on the other hand, is it worth the trouble? At any rate, for all it's worth, I heard a very similar story about Tănase's cabaret act, and his death, way back when, at my grandmother's knee. In fact, this is my earliest recollection of becoming aware of the Soviet occupation of Romania -- I will always associate it in my mind with hearing about Tănase's satire. Funny how the mind works, eh? Turgidson 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what I also remember from those stories is that the theatre where Tănase was performing around 1945 was right there, between Grădina Boema (great place to have a beer!) and Piaţa Palatului. If this can be verified, maybe the info can be added to the article? Turgidson 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the article on the Soviet occupation of Romania: I'm no longer so much worried about the title -- perhaps it's a bit like putting the ox before the cart. What I'd like to do is to decide on section titles first, start filling up details, and see what's natural once the article takes shape (that's how I operate in real life, by the way.) My bigger conceptual problem is with the time frame: whether to stop at 1947 or 1958 (or somewhere in between?) There has been quite a bit of discussion on that, with good arguments pro and con (I'm discounting the chaff), and I still don't know whether a consensus can be reached. Maybe the best compromise would be to take the shorter time frame (when pretty much everyone agrees this was an occupation, both de jure and de facto), and concentrate on writing an in-depth, well-focussed article about that. This would also minimize the potential overlap with Communist Romania article, and address some (perhaps even all) the concerns that, eg, Dahn and Piotrus raised. I'm thinking of making such a proposal on the talk page there, but I still need some time to think about it, and I want to add info to the article first, since some of those discussions can be really draining and time-consuming. Turgidson 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Areas inhabitated by Romanians around 1752-1754. See New Serbia (historical province)--Items cases 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania

Hello, I noticed you made some improvements related to "Transylvania" subject. This is very good, but would also be very useful to add some sources/citations to sustain this information. Otherwise your contributions would be denied by other users who share different opinions. Thank you. Carpaticus (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]