Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Monica Macovei

Would appreciate some help with others in updating and expanding the page on Minister of Justice Monica Macovei. I believe that her work as Justice Minister should come first on the page. However, there appears to be a contradictory opinion that the parliamentary vote of no-confidence, a list media criticism against her, and her academic background should come first. Regardless, this is a biography that could use much work.MIsterMan 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What d'ya all think?

Hello everybody! It's been a while since I haven't been active here, but something has recently happened and it would be nice if there are external opinions too... So long story short: I think you know User:Khoikhoi, who's an admin here. Some edits were made under his account recently on Romanian wiki (see the list of the contributions here: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Khoikhoi), edits that got Khoikhoi blocked under 3RR (http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilizator:Khoikhoi). Khoikhoi claimed that his Romanian wiki account was hijacked (so the edits that got Khoikhoi blocked were made by somebody else using the account) but somehow (?) managed to get it back (http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilizator:Khoikhoi&diff=prev&oldid=855543)... Please also take a look at User talk:Khoikhoi#Ro.wp and tell me if my reasoning is completely wrong? Thank you very much! --Vlad|-> 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I see, you are right - it has no sense. The changes could be made only by Khoikhoi himself. --Roamataa 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If things are what they seem to be, this appears to be a kind of very ugly story of blattant and organized vandalism. --Vintilă Barbu 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the Khoikhoi on the English Wiki affirm that it is he who holds the Ro account? If not, it could be someone else. I don't understand what Khoi would do on Ro Wiki, unless he speaks the language. What article was the account involved in? --Thus Spake Anittas 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he definitely claimed that account to be his: http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilizator:Khoikhoi&diff=prev&oldid=855543 (using the template to indicate he was sysop on en.wiki)

The article in question was ro:Rebeliunea legionară, just take a look at the history: http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebeliunea_legionar%C4%83&action=history (there was another user, Artaxiad (sounds familiar?) --Vlad|-> 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Question: what difference does it make either way?--Domitius 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of us interact with him, since our common interests lead us to the same articles. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it does matter: what makes a en.wiki sysop to act like a vandal on a foreign wiki, one he doesn't speak its language... It all started with this revert without any comment: http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebeliunea_legionar%C4%83&diff=855223&oldid=855136 and it just kept escalating. After all, it's strange: http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discu%C5%A3ie_Utilizator%3AKhoikhoi&diff=855375&oldid=855350

P.S. Welcome back, Anittas! --Vlad|-> 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) As for this controversary: it looks very weird; and I'm not touching it with a stick! --Thus Spake Anittas 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He has confirmed that it is his account, hasn't he: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdiJapan&diff=112994243&oldid=112546228

And to be more specific he has done it right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdiJapan&diff=112991322&oldid=112988833 --Vlad|-> 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But what was happening? What did he (supposedly) do wrong? Doreşte oricine care ştie limba română să explice pentu noi care nu o înţeleg ce întâmpla la Wikipedia română? Ce făcea Khoikhoi, ce era disputa? (sorry I couldn't resist showing off my (bad) Romanian :-/) --Domitius 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, I think Dahn made a pretty fair summary... from his point of view, of course. But basically this is about a en.wiki admin that doesn't seem to be able to speek Romanian, making some edits out of the blue, supposedly reverting an article to a previous version, then claiming it wasn't he who made the edits. --Vlad|-> 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Nici eu n-am înţeles despre ce e vorba. Btw, don't you think Khoikhoi should be invited to this little repartee?

Khoikhoi hasn't seem to had any reaction to my message left on his talk page. --Vlad|-> 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On a different topic: having checked the version he was deleting in the article on Rebeliunea legionară, I couldn't help but notice that the text he was reverting is an apologetic neofascist and highly insulting blabber, most of which has nothing to with the topic and aims to blame the Jews for the pogrom! - I also note that the other version is simply being vandalized repeatedly, without, I am to presume, administrators intervening (note that, in the process, one of the POV pushers calls another user "a brainless person"). This is not the first instance where this is happening on rowiki, as Pv7721 surely knows. To my knowledge, propaganda for such ideas is deleted on sight on enwiki, so why is this even an issue? Since neither version cites sources, why not keep the obviously non-political one (let me add: a quick search on google will furnish plenty of sources backing the non-fascist version, all of which could be used, while you will find material "backing" the other only on green-colored toilet paper). Dahn 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the talk page for that article is filled with Holocaust denial propaganda, and that fascist books are being used as "reliable sources". Now, my guess is that, if this is to continue, we're back to where I questioned the ability of rowiki editors to interpret and address vandalism. If Khoikhoi did do anything wrong, the fact that this other thing is allowed to happen on wikipedia is the bigger problem, and constitutes a major threat to the entire project. Dahn 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Any revert from a user who cannot properly understand the text he's reverting is vandalism. If you believe that the page Khoikhoi was reverting is "filled with Holocaust denial propaganda" or that "fascist books are being used as 'reliable sources'" why don't you jump in and repair instead of throwing inflammatory groundless remarks? Daizus 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean, it's crying out to heaven: "According to the opinion of Jews, 120 people were killed". In just what world is this a sane statement? Dahn 00:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the author refered to bodies like "Uniunea Comunităţilor Evreieşti" at that time led by Wilhelm Filderman (I assume the same author would have written "according to the opinion of Romanians/Hungarians/etc." if he thought the POV he's picturing was made by Romanian/Hungarian historians, supported by Romanian/Hungarian instiutions a.s.o.), though I can't say for sure if they are the source for the 120 number. It could be have some other source (even a non-Jewish one, case in which the author would have been wrong). If some of those statements have bias or unfortunate phrasings, it doesn't mean they are completely wrong or "not sane". The NPOV means a decent distance of all POVs, not only of some. Daizus 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi says he didn't make those edits, and he's an editor in good standing so we should take his word for it. I can't see what vandalism we're talking about anyway, and if he (or whoever it was) was reverting neofascist propaganda, it hardly counts as vandalism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, have you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKhoikhoi&diff=113106189&oldid=113052836 So, you've got an editor in good standing and a very well established admin (and BTW this doesn't mean too much lately, haven't we already seen with Essjay scandal?), on one hand, that does some reverts on ro.wiki, on a highly controversial article, in a language he doesn't seem to be able to understand. According to Dahn above, the reverts were a good thing, but then Khoikhoi claims it wasn't his edits, but at least in my opinion he hasn't given any other plausible explanation about these edits (which exactly were his and which weren't). --Vlad|-> 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave a msg on his talkpage, if you haven't already, so that he may have the chance to explain himself. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Khoikhoi's edits at the article on the Legionnaries' Rebellion were made in good faith is debatable. At that time I considered them unjustified (for several reasons, see here), so I decided to block him for 24 hours after he reverted the page about 6 times. I then contacted him on the en.wp and he said that the account was indeed his own, but someone must have found his password, because he did not make those edits. He even asked me to change the block term to indefinite. Which I didn't, because I wanted the poor guy to have his account back. I unblocked the account for Khoikhoi to be able to change his password (in case it hadn't been changed by the "other" person). He soon confirmed that he could log in and make an edit at his user page there.

Now here is the funny thing: All those edits -- fake Khoikhoi's and real Khoikhoi's -- were made from exactly the same IP (as revealed by checkuser), an IP that hasn't changed for the last two weeks or so. How can it be that someone could steal so much from Khoikhoi: his password, his IP, his favorite subjects and his behavior pattern (lots of reverts without edit summaries or with summaries like "nope"), unless it's the same person?! I asked him this, but all he could answer was [1]: "The IP you are talking about is from a fairly public place. I can say for certain that someone else made those edits today. If you would like to discuss this more, feel free to email me."

My only conclusion is that Khoikhoi lied through his teeth. There is no other way. But, sure thing, I'm ready to hear his side of the story. — AdiJapan ☎ 10:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is something I'm puzzled about. For starters, the talk page of that article only reveals an organized attempt at POV-pushing using openly anti-semitic material (appeals to sourcing, verbatim, "memoirs of codrenists and simists"). Afterwards, the tag placed for "NPOV" described the former version as "anti-Romanian", which did not, I am to understand, raise any concerns that these people were trolling (did they prove it in any way?). The last I heard, wikipedia was not about voting on what the truth is, but about verifiability; that is to say, if, using no scholarly sources whatsoever, one starts editing an article that was neutrally voiced, attacking it on the basis of my POV, and describing it as "anti-Romanian", this is either disruptive editing or plain vandalism. Any seriously researched article would have condoned the other version (and I'm only sorry rowikipedians did not take the time to properly refernce that other version, instead of allowing anti-semitic rants).

On the other hand, I would like to know if, by placing an inuse tag over an article, I am allowed to write just whatever rant that pops in my head, and you have to give me 24 hours until rv me. I think not. This is not the first piece of fascist propaganda I see on rowiki for days on end (there were some there for months on end), so I need to ask if admins are ready and willing to deal with this pattern of behavior and, if so, how they plan to do it. Wikipedia is not censored, but, when just any piece of crap text can fit into it, all informative value of the project becomes highly questionable.

If the answer is "we need more contributors", I'm sorry, but I have to reply "stuff like that is precisely why you don't get more contributors". Rowiki is simply disheartening. Dahn 11:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main concern that people have expressed here is not about the edits made, but that Khoi denied making them; and then it was showed (according to the debaters) that the same IP belonged to him. This issue is not about Wiki policy, but about a user's credibility which is now being questioned. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that, thank you. On the other hand, I was asking why this is even anybody's concern. In this context, I personally would have to say: even if Khoikhoi is not telling the truth, I fail to see what that will bring on - it would be immoral, etc, but, aside from a 3RR which is perfectly justified against vandalism, I don't see any rules he has allegedly broken (if that is really him). To my mind, if the issue is one of credibility, then most of this discussion is pointless. I do not consider pointless an open discussion about propaganda on rowiki, as I have previously indicated. Even if you "question his credibility": to my knowledge, he is not an employee of wikipedia and his alleged edits were not bad IMO (per what I interpret wikipedia guidelines to be).

If you want questionable stuff on rowiki, here's some tidbits for you: my IP on rowiki was vandalized by Bonaparte with full knowledge from an admin there, who simply told him not to be so obvious about what he is doing (!) - it remained so until I another admin intervened on the basis of a message I left there and here; a user who was banned over here was allowed to post racist material until he left the project out of his own will (he had been banned for months on enwiki). Seeing this, I question the credibility of rowiki over that of its individual users. Dahn 12:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Anittas. If you want an analogy: Bill Clinton has not been almost impeached for flirting with Monica Lewinsky, but for lying about it. Dpotop 12:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And, indeed, the only scenario where Khoi is not a liar is that where someone broke into his computer with the intention of making malicious edits on ro.wiki. Sounds quite unlikely... Dpotop 12:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And, indeed, that is hardly of any importance. The Clinton comparison is pointless. Also, what the hell is "malicious" in those edits? Dahn 12:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

According to those people, it is of importance. Credibility, to some people, is important. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So what's the deal here: you're indignant, right? Good, so now we know. So what? Now, does this discussion have an actual bearing on anything? Or is it just another occasion for some users to make empty analogies with American politics and to explain to me why "credibility is important"? Because this is moving into spam territory. Dahn 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion, as I understand it, is about the credibility of Khoi; it's whether he's telling the truth or not. I think credibility is important when you want to know whether you can trust the person in question. I don't see any relation to spam... --Thus Spake Anittas 12:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it clearer: does anyone in that alleged situation face anything other than Anittas et al. being upset with him? If not, then all this discussion is absolutely irrelevant to the project; your impressions about Khoikhoi or whomever belong on your own talk pages. Dahn 12:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not upset, but if the credibility relates to the editing of Wikipedia, then this may fall under other circumstances that don't relate just to the character of the user, but also his edits. Lying in personal life may be irrelevant to Wiki; but lying about editing on Wiki is not irrelevant. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again: is there any rule on wikipedia that one breaks when being "dishonest"? And how does it relate to his edits? His edits either do or do not have something objectionable in themselves - in either case, what "his character is" has no importance, and cannot be used to prove anything, while the sanction will simply be that prescribed for the edit.

I think it depends on the context that they lies are used in. Lies may just as well consider as disruptive, if they are to manipulate part of the project in a negative way. If you want to be sure, ask for an official response. Also, I haven't said what I think; merely how I interpret the msg. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You people keep forgetting that we are not here to play ball in one big team, but merely to interact while we are doing something for the project. We don't have to sing together, we are not required not to disappoint each other, we are not taking advice from each other. We may form friendships and trusts, but we do not have to. Dahn 13:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny that you're so loquacious in support of Khoi, while not being so when making reverts. Dpotop 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, please don't coach me. Dahn 13:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who finds any more anti-semitic nonsense can add it to my userpage there. - Francis Tyers · 12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Dahn seems to say that lying on wikipedia is benign, and in no case against the rules. However, I have found the following piece of basic Wikipedia policy, in WP:CIVIL#Examples:

More serious examples (of incivility, note by Dpotop) include: ... Lies...

So, Dahn, what Khoi did is against the rules. Dpotop 13:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. From the same article: "incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". You have to lie about someone, and, past examples from my own experience have shown that not even in those cases is it punished (according to some of you, I am "a Stalinist", "anti-Romanian", and "anti-Moldavian"). Dahn 13:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is, because, as you will see in Anthere's article on the subject "Incivility is behavior that creates an atmosphere of animosity and disrespect." In this case, Khoi's behavior already did create an atmosphere of animosity. Lies always create an atmosphere of animosity and disrespect. Dpotop 13:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dpotop, we all know what it does, but the issue is what it is. Dahn 13:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, in this discussion we are not interested in what people call you. The subject is Khoi. Dpotop 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I take no interest in what interests you. I ask what the point of this discussion is, since it does not seem to carry any consequence. That which is not explicitly forbidden, Dpotop, is allowed. The rest is just an imaginary show trial. And, come to think of it, perhaps you would like to explain to all of us here how civil it is to call the editor "Coicoi" (for those users who do not speak Romanian, it means "testicle-testicle"). Dahn 13:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me tell you Dahn, that you’re going to far with false accusations. Calling Khoikhoi coicoi is perfectly understandable for a Romanian speaker since: 1. letter K is very rare in Romanian and 2. Romanian orthography is phonetic. Hence, the most immediate and spontaneous way of writing Khoikhoi in Romanian is coicoi. It’s but a spontaneous reaction of a Romanian person transliterating the name of Khoikhoi. Nothing more than that. Implying bad faith or insulting intentions is simply absurd. I think that you are running out arguments on the core debate and are trying to distract attention with imaginary accusations. --Vintilă Barbu 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Vintilă Barbu, I needed a good laugh. Dahn 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot help agreeing with Anittas and Dpotop. As for Dahn, his unremedied resentments against Ro.WP are well known and documented. No need for him to get lost in libelling. --Vintilă Barbu 13:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Dahn, how about trying not to behave like in Balta Albă and not interfering into the lines of other users? --Vintilă Barbu 13:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This answer just above incidentally breaks several guidelines of civility (including professing a lie: I did not interfere into the paragraphs of other users, it is in fact another user who has interfered in my message - and I don't especially mind that he did so). Dahn 13:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You were talking here about some fascist sources found in the talk page. We decided by consenus that a NPOV article should contain all sides' opinions: Antonescu's, Legionaire's and today's historians. In the talk page I asked (with reserves) about the posibility of using legionare sites for showing their opinion, but someone said that it would be a better choice to choose memoires of legionaires involved in the events. That's it. Now the second part. We also agreed that it would be better to develop separate articles about the rebelion and the Bucharest pogrom. An that's because the rebelion did not have as aim that pogrom, but the conquest of power. We don't want to offend anybody, just show facts, in a NPOV manner.--Alex:Dan 13:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, the way to edit such an article is to start from scholarly reference, not from an undigested he said-she said.

Your version of the article, for whatever reason, is filled with antisemitic and scapegoating rhetoric. At a quick glance: it begins with "details" that have nothing to with the rebellion, which "set the scene" by arguing that Elena Lupescu (referred to under a name she did not carry) was responsible, together with other Jews, for anti-Semitic sentiment in the army and elsewhere, and by talking at length about stuff such as Călinescu's assassination and the cession of Bessarabia and N.Transylvania... (but no mention of the fact that the Iron Guard was in government, with Carol II, at the time). The Abattoir massacre is made to look as if it was committed against legionaires (based on some dubious statement that is not sourced, and against scholarly consensus). There are also highly dubious choices of wording ("Codreanu and his comrades were assassinated", references to several people as "spies", claims to knowledge of what was going on Antonescu's mind). Statements such as those about Sebastian being a communist activist are propaganda bullshit. So are those about how a rich Jewish neighborhood allegedly remained unharmed, with the indication that it must have meant something... The article is riddled with original research and POV wordings (highly personal assessments of facts that are neither undisputed nor attributed to anybody). Currently (though not in your version), the writer Paul Goma, whose theories have been considered "negationist" and "anti-semitic" by virtually all scholars on the matter, is used as a "reference" for this, together with a book by the openly fascist Radu Mihai Crişan. The theory that the coup may have been financed by the Soviets (based on something likely taken from Stoenescu, which is in turn based on an ambivalent document and the statement of Crainic, who was a collaborator of both the Iron Guard and Antonescu, himself saying that he picked it up from a Nazi official), if it should be at all present, does not deserve this much exposure. There are also abhorrent theories about how Soviet advisers were leading the Iron Guard around the block, yet another attempt at diverting guilt. The conclusion drawn is that it that the entire incident was provoked by foreign intelligence services...

The blatantly revisionist and fallacious theory about how "Legionaries were not tried by the International Court" (as if there was a requirement) and how they were "persecuted" by Nazi Germany is simply insulting. My guess is that it was picked up from fascist propaganda. One would also have to wonder why Sima fled to Spain after the Krimalpolizei (not the International Court) opened up an investigation.

(The other version had major flaws as well, but these were probably added later and went unnoticed. Aside from the disruptive edits that had caused personal messages to appear on the page, it notably had Antonescu's own theory that the murders in the Abattoir did not occur, with the elaborate and extremely dubious theory "backing" it, and the theory that Antonescu "did not accept the legionary terrorist measures".)

In short: this article favors two different neo-fascist viewpoints, without even really confrontiong these (not to mention relying on proper and mainstream scholarship, which is nonetheless available). We learn from it that the pogrom was collateral and not really carried through, that the Legion was directed by Soviets, that Antonescu was a good guy who (as you will se in the end of the article) was "arrested and tried by the Russians", and that the Legion was (and I quote) "ferociously hunted down by the communists" (never mind the POV, but... relevancy?). The author of the text is reassuring us, in the end, that "in reality", the coup had little to with the pogrom (unlike what "some Jewish associations will say"), and that it was a conflict between Antonescu and Sima, orchestrated by Berlin, Moscow, and London.

I'm sorry, but I find that to be nothing but a load of crap. There is nothing "NPOV" in it, and I am sorry that has to be pointed out. Dahn 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are loosing the subject: here it's about certain Khoikhoi actions. --Roamataa 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an answer to the question raised once more by Dahn after being clearly answered before: The purpose of this discussion is the need of some Romanian editors to obtain the oppinion of other editors interested in Romanian subjects on some of the edits of User:Khoikhoi. It is often useful to obtain the view of other users on a conflictual situation, especially when the situation involves users that often edit on Romanian subjects. Dpotop 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As you put it, doing this is not forbidden, so it is legitimate. Moreover, the oppinions that were provided do not contain slander, but technical remarks on the factual information that was provided. Dpotop 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the question asked by the editor of the first post clearly concerns the interpretation of the facts. The content apparently modified by User:Khoi is less important, what is important is how to interpret his claims that he did not do those edits. This is important: If User:Khoi is not lying, his account is really compromised, along with his computer, and those edits are the result of piracy. They should be deleted, until the actual editor (the pirate) adds them from his account or as an AnonymousCoward. I see this as normal procedure. Dpotop 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you again: what does it add to the project if you or anybody thinks that he is a liar or not? And what does it add to the project if you continue to theorize about what measures should be taken? Wikipedia is not a democracy. Oh, and, if him telling fibs has no connection to wikipedia norms, why the hell were we talking about it just now (with links about civility and whatnot)?

To state it even more clear: what is the purpose of "obtaining the [opinion]" of users? What will that engender? I keep reading it is "important", "often useful", "not irrelevant", but nobody can point out why. Dahn 14:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple: not everyone is as intelligent as you are, and it may happen that such a not-so-bright person misses the clue of the situation. Consulting with others serves exactly the purpose of making sure you understand a situation correctly. It's not a vote, but it's the essence of collaboration. Dpotop 15:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me present you with your own circular reasoning, Dpotop: "the opinion of users matters because we post these things here in the belief that the opinion of users matters". You make it "clear" when you cannot possibly establish what importance it has, even when it is "clear"... Dahn 15:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be the only one that does not understand my point here. So, if you have some remarks on Khoi's behavior, please put them in the next section. You can make sub-sections and link them here instead of clogging the page with your irrelevant remarks. Dpotop 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are about to say, Dahn, is that if someone strongly disagrees with the content of an article, s/he is entitled to vandalize it by reverting its content six times, as Khoikhoi did, without actually understanding what he was reverting, since he doesn’t speak Romanian. As I said on another occasion, you are justifying vandalism. Actually, what you are trying to push, is that any article which doesn’t enjoy the privilege to meet your standards and POVs should be simply deleted by you or your friends. BTW, Dahn, how comes that Khoikhoi, who has no idea of Romanian, vandalized exactly an article against you expressed very sharp criticism  ? I suspect that it was you who told him to keep an eye on that article and revert any change. Which is your involvement in Khoikhoi vandalizing that article on Ro.WP ? --Vintilă Barbu 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I state it as clearly as I can possibly state it: I had no contact with Khoikhoi on this issue, and I don't consider what he did "vandalism". I was not even aware that he was involved on rowiki in any way. I have been vocal against the breach in standards in such articles (no, not "my" standards, but those of wikipedia and humanity in general), and so have others - including, ones who have signed their names on this page. Dahn 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintila, arguing with Dahn on this subject may not be a good idea. Now, he'll accuse you and everybody else of anti-semitic propaganda, and this is the cheapest way of making someone look bad. What is funny is that he asks other people to do his job. :):):) I came to think that his contributions may be too low to justify our acceptation of his behavior. From now on, I will actively support all initiatives aimed at calmind this guy down. Count on me. If he and Khoi are POV-pushing for one another, I don't see why other users should not do it. Dpotop 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants serious breaches of wikipedia rules, let them read Dpotop's last posts, and especially the one just above. Dahn 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, interested readers should take a look at Godwin's Law. It has everything to do with Dahn's behavior in this discussion. Dpotop 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be hard not mentioning Nazis in a discussion about Nazis, Dpotop. Dahn 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not about Nazis, it's about some technical problems related to the ro:User:KhoiKhoi account. Are you saying that ro:User:KhoiKhoi is a Nazi? Dpotop 15:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, friend. I'm saying that the article is about Nazis. I'm saying that I didn't view as vandalism his reverting neo-fascist propaganda (be it first-hand or second-hand) in an article about the Nazis, and that I expect others to see it my way as well. Aside from a 3RR involving removal of vandalism, I saw no actual breach of rules, therefore I consider this discussion irrelvant and its continuation unfair. I did not mention Nazism on rowiki in any other context than this and other articles, to the measure where these were involved in conversations (though most of my comments about rowiki involved these articles, besides its obvious lack of standards overall). You are free to debate whatever ytou want, but it seems to me that having a conversation on whether Khoikhoi lies or not is not material for polls or noticeboards, and that you can engage each other in dialogs on your talk pages. That is indeed all I have to say to you. Dahn 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To lie about your weight or your personal life is one thing; to deceive and manipulate the project is quite another. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, I'm having a deja vu. I had asked you to tell me why it is "important", or, as you say here, "quite another thing". I can understand you can call it many things, what I do not understand is how calling it many things makes it open for debate, relevant to the project, or against the rules. Dahn 16:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is important to us because it is against our interest to be deceived:--on any level. It is important to the subject because it sets a standard and because the project is affected by us. And for the record: I don't think that any measures should be taken against Khoi, even if it was proven that he wasn't telling the truth. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have said: I believe that level of personal indignation against another user about something that was not against the rules, if at all present, should be restricted to user talk pages. Dahn 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, but I don't think that you qualify as my friend. Dpotop 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2. You made your point very early that this discussion is pointless. Now, let us have it, if you have no further idea/information to add. Dpotop 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
3. You do not decide what can/cannot be discussed on noticeboards. Furthermore, you are no admin. Dpotop 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, pal, perhaps you will point out where I had "decided" this. Unlike you just now, I never asked anyone to leave. But, as I have said, I am leaving: you and your associate can carry on expressing your moral viewpoints and expanding on endless and illegible theories about how you think things should happen. Dahn 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, you effectively interrupted a decent discussion with endless (in both size and number) and irrelevant rants about the anti-semitism of ro.wiki. This qualifies very well as "deciding to end a discussion". Vintila openly expressed his concerns for your vandal approach at terminating this discussion, and I subscribe to his interrogations. For the record, I believe that you vandalized this page today by clogging it with irrelevant data after being noticed several times about it. Dpotop 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that with the group. Dahn 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But, by all means, let's not discuss Dah, but Khoi. We can do this in the next section. Dpotop 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your creation of that section, under that title, is trolling. Dahn 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are the troll here.--Thus Spake Anittas 16:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't just say it like that, Anittas. By all means, start a thread, a poll, ask for opinions, demand reparation. Dahn 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dpotop's rule

As an online discussion involving User:Dahn touches subjects related to Ro.Wikipedia, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Anti-semitism equals one. Dpotop 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dptop, why not ask admins there what the incidence of antisemitic edits is? Dahn 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, why not editing that text to remove its antisemitism? If you don't care about editing it, then don't drive us mad here about it. Ask for its deletion on meta, somewhere else, not here! Don't you see your comments are irrelevant in this thread? Dpotop 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, this thread is irrelevant. All your comments in it are irrelevant. I only approached the matter to ask what was being done about the bigger problem, and not about the alleged smaller problem. Your basic defense is that you are allowed to comment anything on anyone, yet you attack me for expressing an opinion about a clear, widespread, and persistent problem that happens to be connected with this issue. Instead, you troll, insult, and call for an alliance against me. Have a good tomorrow, Dpotop, i'm simply tired of seeing you embarrassing yourself. Dahn 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevance is defined by users, not by you. Bye. Dpotop 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks vs. personal attacks

While trying to understand better the problem, I found this posts by Dahn on Vlad's talk page. So, I am a vandal for saying that he cries "Nazi!" when he indeed does (read his replies above). OTOH, he is not infringing on wikipedia rules when saying the version Dpotop was reverting was also partly vandalized (I'm guessing he does not know enough Romanian to notice). Such high civility standards for the others, and so low ones for himself...Dpotop 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I mistakenly typed "Dpotop" instead of Khoikhoi. You'll notice it makes sense that way. Dahn 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even understand that part (I didn't know what Dahn meant, about what version was he speaking), as I know Dpotop is a Romanian native speaker, so I've completely disregarded that part... Is there anything I can do to make this pointless argument to stop? The animosity is obvious, so what is the point in pursuing the discussion? My 2c. (I would give even more I can make you stop fighting...) --Vlad|-> 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fallacious defence of vandalism

I am just coming back after rapidly reading that large article on the Ro WP about “legionary rebellion”. I have bad news for Dahn. That article is by no means “ an apologetic neofascist and highly insulting blabber, most of which has nothing to with the topic and aims to blame the Jews for the pogrom!”. This depiction is obviously distorted, in order to disqualify that article and to justify the blatant and absurd vandalism of Khoikhoi. Actually, the entire defence of Dahn in favour of the vandalizing Khoikhoi lies upon this weird argument: that article is a piece of neo-fascist propaganda crap, which every common sensed person should have deleted on sight. Let aside that wiki rules strictly prohibit such massive and violent interventions like reverts of entire articles, the argument of that article being a piece of neo-Nazi crap is thoroughly false. It is a very large article, technically under the standards of En.WP, (especially quoting, OR, some POV), however by far not that bad as Dahn presents it. My on sight criticism of this article: takes rather an anti-Antonescu stance instead of presenting just facts and tends to blame either non-Romanians or foreign powers for much of the bad things which happened. There also are interesting views, like calling the rebellion a kind of double coup d’etat instead of rebellion, which actually takes the view of Antonescu. It has some comical paragraphs like that of calling the Iron Guard a victim of the Nazis, which is technically correct, however, quite beyond decency. In a word, it needs cleanup and improvement, like removing or sourcing ORs and rewording some POV, but as it is now is far away from being a piece of propaganda crap. I think that Dahn tries to annihilate this article in order to justify the vandalism of Khoikhoi. --Vintilă Barbu 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What I find justifiable or not is entirely my business. All the issues I have presented are present in the text: whether you consider them fascist and antisemitic or not is entirely your business (as is your support for Antonescu) - I can only hope that users will understand why the article in this version is objectively wrong. Dahn 16:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely not a supporter of Antonescu. I find anyway amusing your attempt to “insult” or provoke me with this. …and if I were one, what than …? How ridiculous !

I don’t think that presenting the article as “an apologetic neofascist and highly insulting blabber” is entirely your business, especially when you attempt to justify vandalism calumniating that work. This is the very core of your defence: calumniating the article in order to justify vandalism perpetrated on it.

As a defence strategy, I find this approach intellectually very weak and morally foul: calumny in support of vandalism, nice pair. --Vintilă Barbu 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I simply point out that you support Antonescu in this instance (you say the article "takes rather an anti-Antonescu stance") which, as I day, is your business (so yeah, what then?). For the rest: what I have said is in the article is still in the article, and I still view it as antisemitic and neofascist.

If the issue is what I find to be justifiable or not is being discussed here, I have to repeat that it is my business. The issue is about whether other editors will find the same things justifiable, based on what was introduced in the article. If they don't, they don't. My personal values and priorities are my business, and not subject to what you read in that article. I am saying this to clarify why I do not stand around and debate why I find justifiable what I find justifiable. Objectively, under any circumstances, that article does not comply with minimal wikipedia requirements on content. I have furnished both the factual details of the article that I consider abhorrent (and I'll let users decide if they agree with me), and presented ways in which rules were discarded in writing the text. In my opinion, that is enough to disqualify all the new additions as propaganda, disruptive editing, and vandalism. Dahn 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What d'ya all think?, part II

To allow editing by normal users, I copied the original interrogation here. Hopefully, Dahn will put his irrelevant remarks in an unasked-for and unneeded defence of User:Khoi in the previous section. Dpotop 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello everybody! It's been a while since I haven't been active here, but something has recently happened and it would be nice if there are external opinions too... So long story short: I think you know User:Khoikhoi, who's an admin here. Some edits were made under his account recently on Romanian wiki (see the list of the contributions here: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Khoikhoi), edits that got Khoikhoi blocked under 3RR (http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilizator:Khoikhoi). Khoikhoi claimed that his Romanian wiki account was hijacked (so the edits that got Khoikhoi blocked were made by somebody else using the account) but somehow (?) managed to get it back (http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilizator:Khoikhoi&diff=prev&oldid=855543)... Please also take a look at User talk:Khoikhoi#Ro.wp and tell me if my reasoning is completely wrong? Thank you very much! --Vlad|-> 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I see, you are right - it has no sense. The changes could be made only by Khoikhoi himself. --Roamataa 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not quite know where to start. I think that the whole thing has just blown out of proportions. Dpotop has perfectly summarized my point here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=next&oldid=113319529 I was just asking for an opinion (honestly, I haven't read the version Khoikhoi was reverting, but I tend to believe Dahn about its quality or lack of quality, so ok, the revert was in good faith, but in that case, why Khoikhoi didn't assume responsability about those edits if he made a good deed (reverted POV). Then there is the thing that it's an admin we're talking about, so its someone you look up to, not the average joe user (and even then, if it's an user that generally acts in good faith, then there is no reason for him to act in rampage on a foreign wiki).

I'm sorry that my asking for other opinions transformed in endless discussions, with Dahn backing Khoikhoi (no problem with that, it has his right to an opinion, I wasn't expecting only positive opinions, but Dahn, I'm sorry to tell you that there is a point behind all that: for me it's unacceptable that no answer besides such a puerile reason be provided by Khoikhoi... Indeed, while endless discussions are perpetrated here, he hasn't cared to comment in any way...

And I'm sorry that I've seemed to set people against people, with obvious sides... if not even personal attacks... maybe this is why I've kept away from this board. --Vlad|-> 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not you, don't worry. These are the problems of the en.wiki Romanian community. :) Dahn is an excellent editor, but his relations with some other of us are pretty bad (and vice-versa). Dpotop 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. But, first of all I see the main person is not here - Khoikhoi. I also see that he/she (I don't know the person) was active today on wiki-en (on the wiki-ro hopefully not :-) but seems to not care about all here. Second, if these are the facts, isn't there any official way to make a complaint about this? Do you intend only to cry here and say how mad you all can be? Maybe you should do something more concrete. --Roamataa 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion: Note that most people here (Dahn excepted, but pretty much all the others) consider KhoiKhoi's actions as clear vandalism. Then, deal with vandalism as usual: block for a certain time (24/48 hours). Business as usual. Dpotop 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a decision for admins to take, and it is my understanding it was already taken on rowiki, not for vandalism, but for 3RR. As for vandalism, you have above the words of the person who blocked him, saying that he believes I am right in my assessment of the article Khoikhoi or his impersonator was reverting.

That is the reason why this discussion is pointless: voting and polling does not lead to creating or applying rules against one user, and does not carry any weight here or there. It also does not prevent the other version of the text from being vandalism. I hope I make myself understood. Dahn 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do note, by all means, that KhoiKhoi is not here, but his proxy (Dahn) is doing everything he can to disrupt the discussion. He changed the subject, brought in accusations of antisemitism over the entire ro.wikipedia, and fought everybody else to make them forget the real subject of this discussion. You must understand that KhoiKhoi is returning the service from time to time by reverting on sight to Dahn's version articles he does not edit otherwise (I presume he doesn't know the subject). Dpotop 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do. not. libel. me. Dahn 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT.--Domitius 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the legal threat? Dahn 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just reminding you. When people start complaining of libel, a legal threat (either direct or implied) is usually around the corner.--Domitius 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't here. My view is that he is consciously misrepresenting my actions, and I had to let him know that I consider that libel under the primary and non-legal definition "a written or pictorial statement which unjustly seeks to damage someone's reputation". Furthermore, I believe Dpotop deserved a WP:NPA reminder several times for what he posted above. Dahn 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, I am of good faith. I sincerely believe that your edits of today, with the exception of two, were irrelevant to the discussion. I did try to explain why they are irrelevant, and I have explained what you claimed not to understand (and Vlad confirmed my analysis). Regardless of this, you kept clogging this page with the same repeating arguments. I perceived this as vandalism from your part, as did Vintila and Anittas (maybe not deliberate vandalism, although you are an experienced user). BTW, Daizus, too, considers Khoi's edits as vandalism, check his last post. You kept throwing on the table all sorts of accusations: antisemitism on ro.wiki, me calling KhoiKhoi Coicoi (I also call him Khoi, bacause it's shorter. BTW: it's not funny to make fun of a guy that does not understand, so no, it was not intended as a testicle joke.). Factually, this means exactly that you are, I cite, "doing everything you can to disrupt the discussion". I am also ready to answer for my affirmation on the unethical nature of your relationship with KhoiKhoi. So, I don't see the unjustly part of your definition. Dpotop 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You must not know what vandalism means if you take the liberty to imply that me posting, next to you, on a thread on a talk page is vandalism. I called attention to what I viewed as real problems, not to how x guy is being dishonest about the issue (when this behavior is not in breach of wikipedia conventions). No matter how many of you consider his alleged edits vandalism, it would still not mean that assessing whether x is lying by weighing in opinions of users makes sense. The rest of your post is itself theorizing a "guilt" that is not regulated, but which suddenly becomes important because you or Vintila Barbu think it does. No matter what you may think about anything, Dpotop, I don't have to stand judgment from users whether I am or not unethical, and neither does Khoikhoi or anybody else. As I have said before: I do not answer to projections, to moral senses, to peer pressure, no more than I answer if one of you should start crying and threaten not to finish his meal. I am responsible in front of admins and regulations, not in front of symbolics. Dahn 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret again my point (I almost get used to repeating ideas each time you make false generalizations based on them). I do not see you expressing your oppinions as vandalism. I see you over-expressing them as vandalism, because you hid hijack the discussion through the sheer quantity of text you wrote (that text was also irrelevant to the matter, but this is a secondary issue). 87.91.12.204 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Dpotop (I presume it is Dpotop), I made note of your opinion. It is irrelevant to me or this page, do you'd better practice what you preach. Dahn 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, I'll have to disagree with you about whether Khoikhoi's lying is relevant or not. It is very much relevant. Wikipedia relies on a community, and the community relies on trust. Personally I can no longer trust any of Khoikhoi's edits or actions. Every time he adds in an article that source X makes statement Y, I'll have to go and check that, just as I would with someone who has a history of vandalizing. More than that, his actions as an admin are supposed to be trusted; after what he did I wonder if they can. I know almost nothing about your friendship with Khoikhoi and frankly I don't care, but your trying to minimize the gravity of his lies is at least unsettling.

On the other hand I welcome your wish to talk about the much bigger problems, those of the Romanian Wikipedia. I suppose everyone here knows your attitude about ro.wp: "it lacks even the faintest attempt towards the neutral point of view" (as you put it here). Apart from the unneeded generalization and exaggeration, you are right. There are indeed problems with some users pushing their POV in articles, sometimes with no one to quickly restore the balance. But don't stop your reasoning here, go ahead and ask yourself: Why does this happen?

More than once, you and other knowledgeable Romanian-speaking editors at en.wp were invited to contribute at ro.wp, at least a small fraction of the time you spend at Wikipedia. Your experience would mean so much. I certainly understand the pleasure of working in an environment that is well defined, well equipped and a lot more professional -- I contributed here myself quite a few articles (much of what en.wp has on Romanian grammar and phonology) --, but we have a moral duty to help build the same environment "at home". By standing aside and not fulfilling this duty you are in fact constraining present and future generations of Romanians to give up their mother tongue and seek information -- even about their own country and culture -- in English. This is where the real problem should be looked for. Compared to this, Khoikhoi's lies are indeed irrelevant. — AdiJapan ☎ 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that one may consider the matter relevant, I still cannot understand why. In itself, him allegedly telling lies adds nothing to and subtracts nothing from the project, and does not seem to break any rules. Within the limits of WP:STALK, you were free to double-check his edits at any time. I also do not think that a person who lies about his or her IP comes under suspicion for introducing false information in articles (it looks like a non sequitur to me).

Furthermore, my issue was not with why one would discuss one's personal views on other users, but about why one would discuss them here and to everyone. Because, Adi, even your clarification about what you think is wrong here begins with "personally" and indicates that which you no longer feel like doing in relation with Khoikhoi. All of this is fine, but I fail to see what bearing it has on this page or this project. Just as I did not what reason there was in convoking all of us to mourn over Greier (see previous sections of this page).

To answer you question in short. You should know I have been somewhat active on rowiki, and was at the receiving end of an ugly incident with a user who was banned over here, and who had the support of at least one admin over there. That user defaced by userpage for the IP I was using, connected my IP to my enwiki page, and posted my name (which he had found out when one of his sockpuppets sent me an email to which I replied). It stayed like that for a long time, until Vlad graciously removed the additions (I had tried myself, and the vandal just added them back) - this was after Vlad caught news from a collateral discussion. I'm pretty sure the admin who was protecting the vandal knew what he had done to my page. Interestingly, when you quote me you link to that very dialog between me, the admin, and the vandal! Need I add that the vandal had about a million other reasons to be banned on rowiki? That is why it is happening.

Aside from such relevant incidents: the only user who has voiced an acceptable argument on the "Rebeliunea" talk page was answered with derision; the other users, one of whom is an administrator all consider this version of text "neutral". That is why it is happening.

Admins on rowiki seem to be in error about two major issues. One is their desire to be non-confrontational over their goal to produce reliable content. The other is when they misinterpret the effective disclaimer about wikipedia not being censored with a license to write just anything in it. That is why it is happening.

It is your duty to ensure that fringe opinions are not given exposure, and that users endorsing reliable and mainstream information (the so-called "reliable contributors") will have their work valued and protected. It is your duty over many others. It is not my duty to go in there and try to compensate for or pretend not to notice what that version is lacking in essential principles, especially if risking to be faced with unlimited abuse and admin partisanships. I am not an admin, I am a potential user. If admins cannot help that place look at least reasonable, if they cannot enforce the rules to a minimum level, if more and more of the better ones spend less and less time, then I have to say not only that I cannot and should not have any interest in taking part, but that I consider the very need for a rowiki project subject to serious doubts. Dahn 12:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to insist about Khoikhoi. You can trust him as much as you like; I did too. Not anymore.

About ro.wp: I understood from the first time that you don't want to contribute to ro.wp. I can live with that. But you don't need to twist the facts and gild your words to justify yourself. If an admin does here what Danutz did to you there, will you give up and move to the French Wikipedia? Sure not. You fight and make things right. So don't blame Danutz for your not liking ro.wp. Actually I haven't checked, but most probably Danutz had the same attitude towards Bonaparte as everyone did; see Bonaparte's 6 blocks, the last of which is still underway for another 3 months or so. Banning him is just a matter of time, and you could have prompted that -- but you chose to leave.

About Rebeliunea: I'm sure you see the difference between an admin and someone who is knowledgeable about a subject. You know just as well as I do that admin rights are irrelevant in questions of contents. Of course it is my duty as an admin to make sure the policy is followed -- but if I have no clue about the matter at hand how am I supposed to identify and remove fringe opinions? I don't even know what argument on that talk page you consider acceptable. If you know enough about that subject, why didn't you edit and improve the article? No, you chose to leave.

You are also wrong to generalize about the errors ro.wp admins make, or maybe you're talking about what ro.wp used to be one or two years ago. We are (at least I am) confrontational as much as needed, and we enforce a quality level as high as we can with the people we have. But you forget that ro.wp has less than 1% of the editors you have here. It's easy for someone to pretend to be a genuinely good-faith editor, when those who can see he's an impostor are so few. Why few? Because you and others like you chose to leave.

Romanian Wikipedia not needed? It's below my dignity to respond to that. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As you will note, I was not debating your or my feelings about the gesture, but the point of badgering carried out here.

I can use whatever I want to justify myself, Adi: the problem will still be obvious. And, yes, I expect admins to detect antisemitic revisionist texts (I also expect them not to take part in authoring them, but an admin on rowiki proved me wrong by actually contributing to the article in question). You may also want to read the talk page for Rebeliunea to note the uphill struggle one would have to engage in, with no guarantee that common sense will prevail (one user points out the issue, he is told to "las-o jos că măcăne"; next comes Holocaust denial and open praise for the Iron Guard). Two years ago, you were saying?

As for Danutz, perhaps you may want to read that link to his talk page again to see just what is condoned over by him there (also, it seems that Bonaparte has last been blocked because he wanted to - I'm not even sure what that means). Dahn 11:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so as not to forget: the one "reliable source" used there is Alex Stoenescu - who is contested for several reasons, including actually being trained as an engineer, not as a historian ([2]), and whose controversial-to-say-the-least views are subject to debate (specifically in relation to his Historia contributions, see [3], an article which also indicates that even some of Stoenescu's arguments have been twisted by editors on that page). Dahn 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How many of you are Moldavian?

Just curious. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Define Moldavian. :Dc76 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Those who are Moldavian, know. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the true Scotsmen ;). Dahn 12:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By the definition of Voronin, I'm Moldavian, because I eat parjoale (not chiftele), and harbuz (not pepene). Anyway, I do feel Moldavian, even though technically I can only claim a Moldavian ancestry (a full one, however). Dpotop 10:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop blocked for 48 hours

See here. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anittas, and Vintila, and all who supported me. I am now online again, and I posted my position on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dpotop_blocked_without_warning_or_explanation. Dpotop 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category

Aren't we due for a Category:Romanian Revolution of 1989? Right now, articles that I would classify there are either under Category:Communist Romania or Category:History of Romania or possibly even elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about it myself. Dahn 12:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Native opinion needed

Could I ask for someone to take a look at this edit to Culture of Romania (about manele)? I find the term "anti-Balkan activists" very POV, and I doubt whether the cited piece qualifies as a reliable source, but this gets into sensitive cultural territory where native (and native-speaker) judgment would probably be better than mine. - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first version cites no source. The second one cites a blog. I presume both should be deleted, and replaced with a neutral sourced statement stating that "manele" is a new music genre. Take a look at the Manele article, too. It has no source. :) Dpotop 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If your question concerned the political correctness of the two statements, the second is less good, but it expresses some truth: The fact that a part of intellectuality and population shuns the "manele" sub-culture. But I don't have sources for this statement. Dpotop 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That essay is full of POV and cannot be used as a reference. It's more like a blog where one tells his opinion. I, however, agree that the author made some good points; however, the one who tried to use the essay as a source, misinterpreted it. The author tried to say, in a non-so-absolute matter that one of the characteristics that the people from Balkan have is to blame things on others--as in this case, the manele. That, however, doesn't make them anti-Balkanism. That's a silly way of interpreting it. It's like an oxymoron: the author claims them to practice some of the balkanism, not be anti-balkanism. Well, actually, I think it's a dillema, because the author says that blaming things on others (as in this specific subject) is Balkanism, and thus, it also becomes anti-balkanism. By not wanting to belong to the Balkans, they behave like in Balkans. Either way, remove that stuff from the article. Also, why do you think that the Lautari is a Gypsy thing? It is not. The word comes from Lauta (an instrument). See this. Anyone who played the lauta was called a lautar. See this. I don't have any interest in that article, which is why I don't care to challenge it; but if I were an ardent musician, I would probably be a bit bothered by that claim. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say, I found manele music painful to listen to -- really did. So OK, maybe I am an elitist? But "anti-Balkan activist"? Gimme a break! Turgidson 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ninetynine percent of all manele is pure torture to me and I'm neither an elitist, nor an anti-Balkan activist. It's a disgraceful, disgusting, and horrible sound. I refuse to call it music. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Literature of Romania

In Literature of Romania, [4] was a sequence of anonymous edits that amounted to a major removal of names, without any discussion or summary. I'm not knowledgable enough to say what late 20th century authors really belong on this list, but at least some of the names were familiar to me, and I'm surprised to see them removed. I raised this three weeks ago on the article talk page, but got no response. Would someone more knowledgable please weigh in? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage of Rumania in certain context

I need some clarification on that. Plenty of literature even published now, uses "Rumania" and the words derived from in "Rumanian", "Rumanization", etc. in the context of the interwar and ww2 historic periods. In accordance with that, I think there is nothing wrong in using these words in Wikipedia articles that deal with that time, similar to how we use Lwow or Wilno to the Polish period of history of Lviv and Vilnius or how we use Kharkov and Belorussia in the ww2 context to refer to what in the modern context is usually called Kharkiv and Belarus. Historic literature does it for the sake of consistency as it refers to the contemporary documents as sources often. I think we should follow the historian's usage in WP articles as well. However, I occasionally find Rumania replaced by Romania in the articles about the war and interwar history, including by some participants of this board. Please let me know if the term is somehow offensive. Otherwise, please accept its usage to follow what's done in respectable sources or please explain why this cannot be done. Thanks, --Irpen 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are quoting from a book, then there's no problem. If you're not quoting from a book, then you're using a term that is no longer recognizable. There's nothing offensive in writing Rumania. It's just an old fashion name and according to some, obsolete. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Anittas here. Use "Rumanian" only in quotations. "Rumanization" might have a better claim to being still in use, but we seem to have opted for "Romanianization" and might as well be consistent. - Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that the term is offensive, but rather that it differs more than "Romania" from the local name "România" (and thus "Romania" tends to always be preferred by Romanians). I don't see the point of using "Rumania" when "Romania" is by far the most common variant in contemporary usage. Plus, the two terms of similar enough that we can use "Rumanian" in quotes but write "Romanian" outside of quotations (this is rather different to, say, Wilno vs Vilnius, which are not instantly recognisable as being the same place). Ronline ✉ 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I echo these sentiments. There's nothing offensive about "Roumania" or "Rumania" - indeed, Romanian authors themselves once referred to rumâni. But it's an obsolete variant, so the rule of thumb should be to use Romania in all instances except direct quotations. Biruitorul 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Communist Romania

It seems to me that between late December 2006 and late February 2007 there were a series of edits to Communist Romania most of which amount to a whitewash. I'm probably not the best one to plunge into this, but I think someone should, and I'm calling this to people's attention. I've made some further comments at Talk:Communist Romania, but I haven't really plunged in, and I'm probably not the best person to work on this. - Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Systematization

I see that, despite my strenuous objections, Systematization is still just a redirect to Urban planning in communist countries, this despite the fact that the word is almost universally used in English-language literature to refer specifically to Ceauşescu's schemes for "systemetizing" villages and sometimes, by extension, his reworking of Romanian cities. It is never used with reference to any other country or era.

In any case, where, if anywhere, do we now have an article on the "systemetizing" of Romanian villages? I found a perfectly good citation I wanted to add, and I have nowhere to put it! Here's the relevant passage; should be usable as a citation somewhere this is discussed.

In 1988 he started to implement his infamous 'systematization' proframme. This aimed to erase over 7,000 villages (those with fewer than 3,000 inhabitants) and to resettle their former inhabitants in 550 'agro-industrial centres' by the year 2000, ostensibly in order to increase the cultivable area, modernize rural infrastructure and reduce the differences between town and country. Viewed from another angle, however, millions of Romanian, Hungarian and Romany vilagers wre to be bulldozed out of the relatively safe havens provided by their traditional close-knit small communities and herded into soulless 'bugged' apartment blocks, within which their opinioins and axtivities could be more easily monitored by networks of police 'spies' and informers. This aroused fears among Romania's increasingly victimized ethnic minorities. Fortunately, for lack of time and money, the programme had not got very far before Ceaucescu [sic] was overthrown. But it contributed significantly to the growth of inter-ethnic tensions in Transylvania…" - Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Routledge, 1998. ISBN 0-415-16111-8 hardback, ISBN 0-415-16112-6 paper. p. 577.

- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care too much about this topic, but one can always ask himself whether the Urban article is not able to cover the Systematization info as well; and if it's not best to include that info in the Urban article so that all info on the topic can be accessible to the reader. And not to offend anyone, but this topic seems too boring to me. Lately, it seems that people here have taken a special interest in covering Communism. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Timok Vlachs

This is in reference to Vlachs of Serbia and Vlach language (Serbia). I understand that they call themselves rumâni (as seen, for instance, in this recent news report, which should perhaps make it into one of the articles). However, I take issue with calling their language (probably just a dialect anyway) "Roumanian". This spelling is taken from (at least) two sites: [5] and [6]. However, two questions then arise. One: could this not be the result of a spelling mistake? Perhaps their English textbooks are simply outdated. (Maybe someone could call them up to confirm.) Two: must we even respect their choice of name in English? In Romanian and Serbian, yes, because those are the official languages of the area they inhabit. But just as, for instance, Romanians don't (except within narrow limits) get to choose what they're called in English, French, German, Spanish, Chinese, etc., I personally think we can safely call the Timoc Vlach's "language" "Romanian" - and this isn't entirely OR either, as it lacks separate ISO recognition. Biruitorul 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they [the Serbian state and perhaps the minority organsations] purposely use "Roumanian" to distinguish themselves from "Romanian". Roumanian also seems to be used as an English translation for "rumâni", in order to maintain a distinction to "români" (Romanians). So, I don't think it's the result of a spelling mistake, but rather a deliberate effort to distinguish the Timok Vlachs to the (Vojvodina) Romanians. Since the name "Roumanian" is used as the official English name by institutions such as the Vlach National Council, I think we should use it on Wikipedia, though it should be explained. Ronline ✉ 12:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've come to that conclusion in the interim too. I also listened to recordings of them speak, and it's definitely not the Romanian I know (though not being a linguist, I can't say whether it's a dialect or a separate language). Biruitorul 21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mauco - un păpuşar model

Am intervenit în trecut pe forumul ăsta pentru a semnala cazul lui Mauco, cenzor şef pe articole legate de Transnistria în Wikipedia: Transnistria acţiune necesară acum, Duble standarde la Wikipedia. Între timp s-a descoperit că William Mauco avea cel puţin 3 sockpuppets, iar de 6 luni m-am luptat cu mai multe sock-uri ale lui Mauco pentru a păstra NPOV la articole legate de Transnistria, de obicei el era cel care şi-a impus punctul de vedere. Pentru a înţelege modul subtil în care a folosit Mauco sockurile dar şi pentru a ajuta wikipediştii români să înveţe cîte ceva despre modul de funcţionare a Wikipediei, pun mai jos nişte exemple, care fac parte dintr-un studiu de caz la care lucrez actualmente. Cred că este o lectură plăcută. Atît eu cît şi alţi editori români am încasat mai multe blocuri din disputele cu Mauco şi sockurile sale. Intenţionez să cer un "community ban" pentru Mauco, dar poate sînt orbit de patimă personală, ţinînd seama că am avut dispute directe cu el (nu cred că eram departe de un permanent ban). Vă cer şi vouă sfatul dacă asemenea caz merită sau nu community ban, deocamdată Mauco a primit doar 2 luni. De amintit că la precedentele blocuri primite, Mauco le-a fentat prin sockurile sale, dar la vremea aia nu se ştia.

Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)[7]

Personages of the show

1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006 [8]
2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006 [9]

   Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary, words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) and Wikipedia abreviations ("rv" instead of "revert") from his first edit.

3. User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007 [10]

   Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.

4. User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 [11]
5. User:MariusM, opponent, bad guy, edit warrior, black sheep.

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

1. Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni"[12].
2. In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": [13]. According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet" [14].
3. Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [15]
4. Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" [16]. "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[17]
5. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”[18]
6. Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"[19]
7. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":[20]. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"[21]
8. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"[22]
9. Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed [23] [24]paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement"[25]. Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise" [26]
10. Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past [27]
11. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names[28]. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
12. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:[29], [30]
13. Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.[31]
14. Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.[32]
15. Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.[33]
16. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [34]. "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" [35]. Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"[36]
17. Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson" [37]
18. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"[38]
19. Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit" [39]
20. Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it" [40]
21. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"[41]
22. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"[42]
23. Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"[43]
24. Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary) [44]
25. Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say" [45]
26. Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems"[46]. "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia"[47]. "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary) [48], "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"[49]
27. Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"[50]
28. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"[51]
29. Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"[52]
30. Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"[53]
31. Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"[54]
32. Sockpuppet claiming in a discussion where opponent was part, lack of knowledge about a language the opponent was aware that sockpuppeteer has knowledge: [55], [56]
33. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[57]
34. Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories"[58]
35. Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: [59]. At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead [60]
36. Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you" [61]
37. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[62], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[63], "I see. That's bad news"[64]
38. Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month"[65]. Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"[66]
39. Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation" [67]
40. Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring" [68]
41. Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[69]
42. Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" [70]. Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"[71]

Hiding evidence

1. Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies: [72]

Comments

Vă rog scrieţi comentariile voastre aici.--MariusM 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, MariusM. Strange story -- it's a bit too intricate for me to grasp the whole thing, but it's good to have a case study like this, so as to be aware of what's going on. Let me just make a comment on something I know about, viz, the article on Vladimir Socor, which is the only place I got to interact with Mauco. It was rather strange, since I felt he was more interested in a hatchet job on this person, than in developing the article. I don't want to get in the whole story -- you can see the details on the talk page there -- but it looks to me that this had more to do with the whole Transnistria thing than anything else, and I was being caught in a wider battle of sorts, of which I wasn't even aware of, let alone comprehend. But mercifully, things did not get out of hand, and the article has been slowly progressing. By the way, in the process, there were some nasty rejoinders from a couple of other editors, here and here, but not from Mauco, who, I must say that, has been polite to me throughout, although we had some serious disagreements about content. I know you intervened at some point (and that was helpful), but maybe you can explain what was that all about -- perhaps this different context would shed some new light, and help clear the air? Turgidson 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. If you really think this is going on: is there an RFC? Have you asked for a usercheck (to determine whether these are sharing IP addresses)? Or are you just venting in a venue with is really not where any of this can get solved? - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a notice at [73], please post your comments there.--MariusM 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Language & navigational templates

I've been having a debate with User:DávidSch over Template:Municipalities and Towns of Harghita County - he wants Hungarian names listed in parentheses, but I'd rather have just Romanian names, for the reasons given below. Please weigh in with your comments, as this issue is bound to crop up on several future templates for other counties.

1. Hungarian is not an official language anywhere in Romania. In 20%+ towns, it has some attributes of an official language, like signage and educational rights, but it's still not official.

2. Precedent isn't binding on Wikipedia, but it can be illustrative. Is there a comparable template that provides two names? If you look, for instance, at the template for Vojvodina, which has six official languages, only Serbian names are given, with other names provided in individual articles.

3. Hungarian names are just a click away, in the articles themselves. Biruitorul 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Biruitorul. The alternative is overkill, and risks creating a precedent for unmanageable situations. As a side note: I don't know why we use the tricolor for such templates; isn't it more natural to use county heraldry (or, at least, both the county heraldry and the tricolor)? After all, the templates themselves Romania-related only by proxy. I mean, we do not use the tricolor in templates for areas of Bucharest. It is a minor point, but this struck me as unusual. Dahn 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and yes, I'd rather see the county seal there. Biruitorul 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uselanguage

Could a native speaker please add a Romanian wording to Template:Uselanguage (and then leave a not here, so that we don't have a bunch of people go to do this)? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How about, "Vă rugăm să nu faceţi contribuţii în limba română la Wikipedia în limba engleză. Contribuţiile dumneavoastră vor fi apreciate la Wikipedia în limba română." Biruitorul 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest "la Wikipedia în limba engleză" instead of "la Wikipedia englezească" and "Wikipedia în limba română" instead of "Wikipedia românească"? Dahn 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Biruitorul 21:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a tad repetitive. How about, "Vă rugăm să nu faceţi contribuţii pe româneşte la Wikipedia în limba engleză. Contribuţiile dumneavoastră vor fi apreciate la Wikipedia în limba română." Turgidson 21:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pe româneşte"? That sounds a bit archaic to me. If we go with your suggestion (which is perfectly acceptable, btw), could we also go with "în româneşte" or "în română"? Dahn 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it: we could just drop the "limba" in front of all both "engleză" and "română". Unless I'm being too specific ;). Dahn 21:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Guys, I have to brag a bit. If I got this right, this is the first time that a Romanian-related DYK entry leads the bunch and has a picture included. Dahn 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Baia was put in the lead with its picture included, but I am not 100 that the picture represents the Moldavians, so it might actually disqualify. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Dahn 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a snazzy moustache Mille had! What next? How about a DYK entry about Sarmale pe româneşte? Turgidson 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't we already...? Dahn 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Darn! Beaten to the punch! But those sarmale don't look quite the way they should, methinks. The ones here look close but no cigar, either. Perhaps there is still room to picture the perfect sarma... Turgidson 22:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually know. Call me unpatriotic, but I never liked the dish, and haven't eaten a single sarma in the last 20 years or so. Dahn 22:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not unpatriotic, downright treasonous! Biruitorul 03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to forcefully intrude and spoil your amusement, but I support Dahn on this one. I always thought that mămăligă with all the necessary additions (meat, cheese, garlic, etc) is the national dish. Sarmale are just easy to make. You are free to call me regional separatist and traitor to the unity of the nation. :-) Although, now thinking of it, before Columbus... :-) :Dc76 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Meat on mămăligă? No, that can't be. Cheese and garlic, yes, also sour cream, maybe eggs. But why meat? Unless it's sarmale, of course :) Turgidson 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say not "on", but as a side dish. Anyway, wahtever :-) :Dc76 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm a little slow on the uptake here, but I just have to say I love you guys. :) Yammering about national cuisine as a form of patriotism on your noticeboard--LOL. I myself have never tried sarma...or anything Romanian for that matter. Any recommendations? ;-) K. Lásztocska 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cercul Militar Naţional

If someone wants to do another, there is a good image of the Cercul Militar Naţional on the Commons, but no article yet. - Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Liviu Librescu

Doesn't Librescu have some Romanian roots? I'm asking because both his surname and his first name seem to be Romanian (used by Romanians). What does Librescu mean? --Thus Spake Anittas 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but a quick search shows that a Librescu from Iaşi is mentioned in the article on Abraham Goldfaden. Is there any connection there? Turgidson 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As the public TV from Romania says, the guy is ethnic Jewish, born, raised, and educated in Romania. He emigrated to Israel in the 70s after some Israeli president or prime minister (Begin?) put a word for him. He went to the USA a few years later, and taught something at VirginiaTech until 2 days ago. For this info, you can cite all Romanian newspapers. As for the name... well... :) I presume we will have to wait for the next Romania Mare if you look for something else. :):) Dpotop 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Trianon

Sorry to bother you, just wanted to point out that the article about the Treaty of Trianon doesn´t respect Wikipedia´s neutrality policy. It represents the point of view of Hungarian revisionists. This is perhaps not corrected because one of the administrators of Wikipedia (Hungarian patriot...) is vigilating the article, and instead of correcting the mistakes, she just wants the "weasel words" sign to be removed. I´m new to Wikipedia, but the concept of "encyclopedia" is quite clear to me.

Yes, the article needs lots of work. Most POV parts are pro-Hungarian, but I have also found some that I would label as Romanian POV. There's also a slavic influence. :) Dpotop 18:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me how I can change my username from "Venatoreng" (it was a mistake I made) to "Venator", the username name I have on the Romanian and Spanish version of Wikipedia ? Thank you for your time, --Venatoreng 16:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username_policy#Changing_your_username. Dpotop 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to Trianon, I agree that it's a lousy article, poorly written and confusing, but not necessarily overly pro-Hungarian. I hope to soon, once I have more time, start serious work on the articles related to sensitive and important political concepts (such as Trianon, and Greater Hungary, and a few other things) so we can finally have good, informative and scholarly articles on these continent-reshaping treaties and concepts. Right now most of these articles are simply political battlefields, and the best way to combat partisanship is with scholarship IMHO. :) Anyone interested is welcome to join me once work commences. K. Lásztocska 01:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

Of Battle of Romania (1944) to Iassy-Kishinev Offensive here. Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another photo question

I've just uploaded Commons:Image:Bucharest - old synagogue relief.jpg. Does anyone know more about this building near Piaţa Amzei? I'm guessing (but only guessing, from this relief) that it is a former synagogue; I'd appreciate knowing whether I'm right, but also anything else about the building (or the inscription: I don't read Hebrew. Is it the Ten Commandments?). - Jmabel | Talk 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the "Iesua Tova" Sinagogue, the oldest in Bucharest? And I'm practically sure it's functioning. Dpotop 06:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are the Ten Commandments. Biruitorul 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea it was a functioning synagogue! Thanks! I'll caption accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

According to this source, the Iesua Tova Synagogue was built in 1827, and is located on Take Ionescu Street. (The 4 other synagogues listed there are all newer.) According to this source, the actual spelling is "Ieşua Tova", which makes more sense to me; an alternate name is "Sinagoga Podul Mogoşoaiei". Also, the address is listed as 9, Take Ionescu Street. Turgidson 02:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is more on the history of the "Yeshua Tova" Synagogue, together with a pic confirming 100% Dpotop conjecture! Turgidson 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys mistake Wikipedia and maths. My edit was no conjecture. I am from Bucharest, therefore I know that. Don't need a proof for it. :) Neither should you, were you Bucharesters. Dpotop 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey! As a kid, I was walking by that place every day -- in all likelihood before you were born. The street was called Mendeleev street, and I think the synagogue was on the left side, walking from Piaţa Amzei to Piaţa Romană -- please do correct me if I'm wrong. Your comment jolted my memory, but I still needed "proof", to be 100% sure. At any rate, I put a stub here, see what you guys think. Turgidson 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on the left as you go from Amzei to the boulevard, right in face of "Gradinita" (the current McDonald's). And I'd put a bet it was not called Mendeleev. That's another street. But I can't remember the old name right now. BTW, how old are you? You should be at least 40 to make the previous statement. Dpotop 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another good conjecture! But hey, I'm not Methuselah. :) And thanks for the correction -- after looking at Google Earth, I see that Mendeleev Street is still there, but Take Ionescu is simply the street going perpendicular to it, right from Piaţa Amzei to Magheru Boulevard. What was the old name of this street? — Turgidson 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The street was formerly known as Nikos Beloyannis. Beloyannis was a greek communist executed by firing squad in 1952. After the fall of the Ceausescu-regime, the name of the street was changed.

Răşinari

I suspect that Răşinari deserves more of an article, but I don't really know enough to write it. In any event, I've uploaded a bunch of 2002 photos at Commons:Category:Răşinari and Commons:Category:Sibiu-Răşinari tram. I also suspect that there are literally hundreds of Romanian towns and villages that deserve a comparable set of photos: when you go to the countryside, bring that camera! - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to note: those sure are beautiful pictures (well, maybe not the troiţa one, but that's just because I dislike troiţe). Congrats. Dahn 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you have an allergy to garlic? Dpotop 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Only to really tacky garlic. Dahn 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Masks, animals, and the holiday season

Sorry to be coming here with so much stuff lately, but I've been uploading a lot of my old photos.

The following are some pictures I took 5-1/2 years ago at the Museum of the Romanian Peasant. They have a page that is at least somewhat related to this, but nothing that accounts for some of these artifacts. I suspect that there are some traditions here that deserve articles (for which these can function as illustrations). I also suspect that there is at least one relevant category to introduce on Commons to cover these. Does someone know more about this? Do relevant articles already exist? - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

And this is still a living tradition of the Catholic Šokci people in Mohács, Southern Hungary. They have a lot of connections to Vlach and South Slavic groups. --KIDB 07:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a living tradition in Romania as well; I've seen video that I believe dated from December 2000. - Jmabel | Talk 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrare Transnistria - soluţie finală

La Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria puteţi vedea rezultatul arbitrării legate de Transnistria. Principala constatare a comitetului de arbitraj a fost că există la Wikipedia o campanie profesionistă de dezinformare din partea unor forţe simpatizante ale regimului separatist din Transnistria. 3 Wikipedişti - păpuşarii propagandişti ai regimului de la Tiraspol Mauco şi MarkStreet, cît şi EvilAlex, un moldovean din Tighina care li s-a împotrivit, au fost pedepsiţi cu interzicere de a edita pe teme legate de Transnistria. Personal am scăpat fără nici o observaţie, deşi 3 admini (un checkuser printre ei) au cerut comisiei de arbitraj permanenta mea banare, demersul eşuînd lamentabil. N-am fost totuşi departe de banare, la un moment dat 7 arbitri susţineau banarea mea pe motiv că aş fi "single purpose account" implicat în editare tendenţioasă. Am izbutit să le schimb opinia unora dintre ei trimiţîndu-le e-mail direct în care le-am atras atenţia că în întreaga pagină de dovezi a cazului de arbitrare nu există nici un DIFF care să arate vreo editare tendenţioasă din partea mea. Abia atunci şi-au dat seama că într-adevăr nu există dovezi contra mea sub formă de editări (DIFFuri) făcute de mine, ci doar bîrfe despre mine ale unor terţe persoane. Sfatul meu pentru cei implicaţi în viitoare cazuri de arbitrare este să nu neglijeze posibilitatea de a scrie direct e-mailuri arbitrilor, aceştia n-au timp să studieze în amănunt ceea ce e scris în paginile arbitrării, trebuie să li se atragă atenţia în privat asupra problemelor principale. După începerea arbitrării, pentru a se obţine banarea mea, s-au fabricat dovezi contra mea. De pildă, un admin m-a blocat pentru edit-war deşi în ziua respectivă avusesem doar o editare la articolul Transnistria şi 11 editări pe pagina de discuţii. Apoi acea blocare a fost raportată arbitrilor ca dovadă a răului meu comportament. În altă zi alt admin a raportat în cazul de arbitrare că articolul Transnistria e "unmanagable" datorită edit-warului, insinuînd că aş fi implicat în asta, deşi în ziua respectivă nu avusesem nici o editare la acel articol. Cei doi admini despre care vorbeam s-au implicat şi în ştergerea unui sandbox din spaţiul meu personal de utilizator (unul a propus ştergerea, altul a aceptat-o, contrar părerii majorităţii celor participanţi la dezbatere), apoi respectivul sandbox a fost prezentat la arbitrare ca exemplu de abuz al meu, de folosire a spaţiului de utilizator pentru propagandă politică (cel care mi-a şters sandboxul îşi foloseşte şi el spaţiul la propagandă politică, punînd acolo fotografii şi citate din Lenin şi Che Guevara). Alt wikipedist, neadmin dar cu vechi contribuţii (din ianuarie 2003), a cerut banarea mea pe motiv de atacuri personale pe care nu le făcusem. Vorba italianului: "tot ce nu mă omoară mă întăreşte".

E bine că există o recunoaştere oficială a campaniei propagandiste profesioniste a regimului de la Tiraspol aici la Wikipedia, e mare păcat că EvilAlex a fost banat, nici în cazul lui n-am văzut vreo editare tendenţioasă. EvilAlex e un wikipedist foarte bine informat în probleme de Transnistria, fiind născut la Tighina (oraş sub ocupaţie transnistreană) şi avînd şi acum familia acolo, deasemeni fiind vorbitor nativ de rusă a fost de ajutor de multe ori cînd era vorba de comparat surse în limba rusă (pe care eu nu le pot verifica). Cred că banarea lui EvilAlex se datorează unei dorinţe a arbitrilor de a păstra o aparenţă de "neutralitate" (deşi sînt situaţii cînd adevărul nu e la mijloc) şi lipsei sale de activitate în a-şi apăra poziţia în cursul arbitrării. Cred că dacă EvilAlex nu s-ar fi manifestat foarte zgomotos în susţinerea mea nici n-ar fi fost implicat în cazul de arbitrare.

Mulţumesc tuturor celor care în cursul arbitrării m-au susţinut, toţi aceştia utilizatori simpli, nici un admin.--MariusM 00:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mda. Disputele impotriva rusilor sunt intotdeauna dificile, dat fiind ca acestia au admini (Khoikhoi sau Mikka, de exemplu) care nu se sfiesc sa isi apere camarazii impotriva oricarei logici sau bun simt, si chiar sa intervina ca admini pe pagini unde editeaza. Adminii romani se simt intotdeauna obligati sa respecte "a la lettre" toate recomandarile, si nu intervin in dispute care le-ar "strica imaginea". C'est la vie. Dpotop 06:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pentru EvilAlex, solutia este sa editeze prin intermediul tau sau al meu: Cand are surse, lasa un mesaj pe pagina de talk, si unul din noi adauga informatia. Dpotop 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Asa cum spui tu, adminii romani se simt obligati sa-si arate o imagina cat mai prefesionala si political-correct in afara. Mai din contra, cred inca ca incerca sa ia partea din opozitia noastra ca sa dovedeasca ca sunt obiectivi. Ironia mare este ca acesti admini au fost facuti admini cu initiativa lui cel mai mare vagabond roman de pe Wiki si cu sprijinul cominitatii romane. Eu sincer nu cer favoruri de la ei sau sa arate vreun fel de loialitate fata de noi, pentru ca nu-mi plac chestii din astea, dar din An in Pasti ar mai fi frumos ca si ei sa-ti mai ureze sanatate sau poate sa fie mai amabili cu membrii care lucreaza la topicuri despre Romania. Poate ca dupa ideia lor, a fi profesionist e sa fii un sofist total si de loc prietenos. Dupa parerea mea, asta este o cale gresita, dar in fine. Cand ai de aface cu un 'Level-5' care face totul posibil ca sa te simti ca cel mai dobitoc om de pe lume, te mai intrebi ce rost mai are sa tii la acest popor, ca totdeanua si-a dat in cap. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A se vedea hotărîrea arbitrării, lui EvilAlex (cît şi celorlalţi) le este interzisă orice contribuţie legată de Transnistria, inclusiv în pagini de discuţii ale altor utilizatori. Se pare că asta e noua modă la comitetul de arbitrare, prin "topic ban" se includ şi pagini de discuţii ale altor utilizatori. Precizez că Khoikhoi şi Mikka nu fac parte dintre adminii care au cerut banarea mea, alţi trei admini au făcut asta - a se vedea paginile cazului de arbitrare. Khoikhoi i-a luat apărarea lui Mauco, fără însă să ceară pedepse pentru alţii.--MariusM 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Am pierdud un text din prostie din cauza edit conflict, asa ca o sa fiu mai scurt.Felicitari, Marius, pentru eforturile tale. Cu adevarat ai scapat acest topic de razboi infinit. Alex poate inca edita pe teme legate de Moldova care nu fac parte din categoria Transnistria. Si poate de asemenea edita in Wikipedia romana. Sper ca in timp sa mai apara si alti editori, lumea e mare. Cu verificarea surselor in rusa, o sa incerc sa ajut eu. In fine, inca o data, bravo lui Marius. :Dc76 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanian names

This is by no means meant to pick on Ronline, but this edit of his struck me as interesting and I thought we should have a more thorough discussion on the matter. As far as I know, "family name -- given name" is fairly common practice in Romania, at least in certain contexts. Perhaps "prenume" simply came into the language via French and Latin, but later usage did not reflect its original meaning. Anyway, it's an issue that's worth exploring, preferably in an article of its own on the model of Polish name, should any of us have the necessary information to write such an article. Biruitorul 16:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of use? The only place in Romania where my name was called in "surname-given name" order was in school. And that's because names are ordered (even in the USA, and Western Europe) by surname. Otherwise, it's given name first, and Ronline is perfectly right. Dpotop 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of this is bound to be OR, but here goes. Yes, in the West names are ordered last name-first name, but as far as I'm aware, one never sees "Bush George" and certainly never hears it (but one might see "Bush, George" if in a list). Doesn't "tovarăşul Ceauşescu Nicolae" ring a bell? See for instance [74], [75], [76], [77]. Maybe not ultra-common, but not unknown either. Biruitorul 06:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Biruitorul is right: the switch does appear without a comma, and people are often presented as "Family name name" in both official and colloquial contexts (for the latter, one example is the news, where people are credited with whatever form, and sometimes with varying forms in the very same context). This happened to the point where maximum confusion has occurred; for example the former Minister of Tourism, although commonly known as "Dan Matei-Agathon", was actually born "Matei-Agathon Dan". The chaotic usage of "Zelea" for Codreanu may be the other side of the coin.

Since we're on the subject, I have to point out various other details. One of them is that, before 1900s, family names were generally not used outside of boyar circles, and that, in their first form, second names were actually patronymics - meaning that male children were not to have the same second name as their father. Another one is a vague indication I found at some point in Ion Ghica's memoirs (on wikisource), which leads one to the conclusion that "-escu" was originally a strictly Wallachian suffix (or, at least, as Wallachian as "Mac" is Scottish-Irish and "Van" is Dutch-Flemish); something of this sort was also attested by Asachi. These are paths worth pursuing, but I wonder if an overview of them was ever published. Dahn 06:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Existence proof: ro:Utilizator:Balan Adrian - Ioan, ro:Utilizator:Cerghizan Radu, ro:Utilizator:Simu Horia. Turgidson 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a tendency in Romanian - as in some other "Western name order" languages - to place the family name first and the given name last. However, this does not amount to a generalised or "traditional" use as expressed in the Given name article. That is, there is a distinction between countries such as Taiwan or Hungary where the given name nearly always follows the family name, and this is seen as a normal, linguistically-correct practice, and countries such as Romania where given names are sometimes placed last but where Western name order is still used predominantly. Ronline ✉ 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed in some cases people in Romania put surnames first, but this is nothing but incorrect and bad practice. (And in my opinion quite annoying). The main reason for this is the fact that in schools the surname is put first when listing pupils/students. But again, this is incorrect and by no mean we should incourage it. The correct use is Romanian is only one: Prenume (Given name) Nume (Family name). Alexrap 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanian vampire beliefs

Hi everyone. I have to ask you for help. In the vampire article, we have a large section about Romanian vampire beliefs, but we are lacking a reliable source for it; it is currently only referenced with an online vampire fan site. Since there already are large sections about the vampires of other East European peoples, and since vampires are pretty important in Romanian folklore, simply deleting the section (as one editor wants to) would make the article unbalanced. I figured that users living in Romania probably have access to proper Romanian-language ethnographic/folklorist literature describing vampire beliefs, so that the info can be sourced (possibly rewritten as well). As a Bulgarian, I had no problem finding some ethnographic resources about our folk beliefs, and I hope it would be even easier for you. Would someone take the trouble to deal with this? A visit to your local library should be enough; if we're lucky, there could even be cited excerpts from serious Romanian-language books online, although one shouldn't hope too much. --Anonymous44 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps, but it could be a start: Florescu, Radu; McNally, Raymond T. (1994). In search of Dracula: the history of Dracula and vampires. Houghton Mifflin Co. ISBN 0-395-65783-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) — Turgidson 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! It sounds good, seems reliable, and it might contain what is needed; on the other hand, I think popular books relying on Dracula fiction in order to attract the interest of the public are likely to be less relevant than actual folklorist publications, or even than patriotic descriptions of the "Rich Mythology of Our Great People" type :), preferably written before the Dracula craze. That's why I expect actual Romanians to be able to deal with this better than anyone else. And by all means, if anyone has access to that book, I'm sure a contribution based on it would also be a huge improvement. --Anonymous44 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK. If you want something more down-to-earth than Florescu & McNally, here are a couple more possibilities:

• (in Romanian) Robert Ferenţ "Istoria misterioasă a vampirilor" (The mysterious history of vampires), Evenimentul Zilei, March 27, 2003.
• (in Romanian) Julia Maria Cristea, "Noaptea Strigoilor – Noaptea Sfântului Andrei" (Strigois' Night - St. Andrew's Night), Revista Agero

Stock up on garlic, first! Turgidson 17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed translating some messages into Romanian

List can be found at Commons:Message templates/todo-big. - 69.17.114.183 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The link leads nowhere. Can you please check where the error occurred? Dahn 06:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Any climatologists here?

Now would be as good a time as any to come up with a "Climate of Romania"/"Climate of Bucharest" article, on the Climate of Florida/Climate of Bismarck, North Dakota model. Biruitorul 02:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got an immense geographical monograph of Romania. The only problem is that it is was completed during Gheorghiu-Dej, so there is little there that would still be reliable... Dahn 03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit of googling yields this table, which says that the max temperature in Bucharest in July and August is 28°C. On the other hand, the icon on the left says today's temperature in Bucharest was 39°C. Hmmm... what should one make of this? Turgidson 04:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes for rivers

Am I the only one to think that boxes such as the ones in Argeş River and Olt River are impractical and ridiculous? I mean, just look at them: they are immense, take up half the text space in width and are screen-length at best; they contain info that is far from essential should actually go in the article (can you imagine what it would mean for the Danube to have a box with every locality it passes by in it?). While I commend the work done by the editor in listing the info, I think that placing it outside the article was a bad idea. Dahn 06:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noted the same thing with Someşul Mare River: the infobox overwhelms the article, and is just too long. The info in those boxes is good and useful and so should be kept, I think -- but why not embedded in the article per se? Turgidson 13:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, something needs to be done about these infoboxes. Very unaesthetic for large rivers.Anonimu 08:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, for my part, that the information given in those infoboxes is useful and encyclopedic. If you have an esthetic problem, then transform the infobox and place it at the bottom of the article, but you should not delete it or move it. Dpotop 08:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, let me clarify my proposal one more time: the info should go in the article. Not in an infobox that is as big as any article, not in another infobox, not in useless templates that cover two thirds of any conceivable article. Furthermore, once in the text, the info should be, in time, converted into descriptive text - that is to say, a presentation of the river instead of a bulleted list. This is what a proper article looks like, and, unless I'm being unorthodox here, I think we should set our goal on proper articles (not on very large templates and infoboxes, which defy the very purpose of templates and infoboxes). See my point? Dahn 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so no infobox filling 2/3 of an article. Meaning that you don't like this article, either. But, marvel, you contributed to that one, too, yet did not seem startled by its uglyness. Dpotop 10:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue, Dpotop, is not about proportion between stubs and infoboxes, but about needlessly expanding infoboxes to gargantuan levels (with info that is by no means essential). Obviously, the idea is that articles should/will be expanded. Let's take your Cantacuzino example: both the infobox and the stubby article say the absolute essential (and probably less than the absolute essential). Let's say I charm you further by expanding that article in the future, instead of starting work on its infobox, and then I change my mind and include all of the article in the infobox. When you see me doing that, we can continue this conversation. And lo, perhaps you'll do me the honor of looking into Gheorghe Tătărescu for a glimpse into why your snide comment runs parallel to logic. Dahn 04:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll let you decide, as usual, what is "the absolute essential". I forgot for a minute that you are the measure of good and evil here on wiki. Bye. Dpotop 07:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you see me "deciding" what the absolute essential is, Dpotop? Did you see me creating the infoboxes in question? Do you, in fact, believe that the infoboxes for rivers feature the absolute essential? Do you see any other such infoboxes around? Are you familiar with what an infobox is, and can you present me with proof that it is ever meant to be this detailed? Did you see me stripping that overabundant data myself? Didn't you see me bringing it up for discussion here? Didn't you see two users agreeing with me?

You are surely wasting my time with stuff that you can discuss on forums and your personal mail. I have told you before: whatever view you take of me does not interest me, and I do not contribute here either to idly chitchat or review the basic tenets and purposes of wikipedia for you. Dahn 07:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, perhaps I should note: never did I imply that the infobox is objectionable because it is "ugly" (even though it is), but because it is (and I quote my original post) impractical (meaning that it fails to help the reader as a summary) and ridiculous (meaning that it abuses the very purpose of infoboxes; personally, I could do without most infoboxes altogether, but you will note I do not rely on this notion in this discussion or any other). This is probably irrelevant to people who want to make allegations about my character, but maybe it isn't so to the users whose opinion I care about. Dahn 08:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not Dpotop who raised the issue. If you don't want your time to be wasted, then don't start such discussions. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you did not care to read the full post you are replying to, reason why you joined your friend in wasting my time over here. Dahn 08:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your time has no value to us, so we don't really care whether we waste it. And you're right that I didn't read your entire post. It's because I don't want to waste too much of my time on you. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you know you can elaborate on this down in some chatroom, as you have in the past. Dahn 08:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Polish-Romanian relations

I have created a new category; please help populate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board

Perhaps our Romanian colleagues would be interested in joining this project?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of Romania

I have two questions related to this category, that are not related to one another:

1. Is it normal that Category:Scythia is a sub-category?
2. Is it normal that the entire Category:Austria-Hungary is a sub-category?

With the exception of the previous two problems, inclusion in the category seems OK to me. However, should we not create a "related" category on the "History of Romanians" or "History of Eastern Romance people" to cover what is traditionally called "Istoria Romanilor"? Dpotop 18:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no answer for one day. I removed the 2 sub-categories mentioned above. Dpotop 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of the Vlachs or Category:History of the Romanians

I propose the creation of a category covering more or less the History of Romanians, as it was understood by Romanian historians. That is, coverig the entire Eastern Romance. I have two proposals for the name:

1. The tranditional one would be "Category:History of the Romanians" or "History of the Romanian people"
2. The one that should pose the least problems would be "Category:History of the Vlachs" or "Category:History of the Vlach people(s)"

This category should include subjects related to the history of *-Romanians (Daco-, A-, Megleno-,...), as well as the history of Moldova, and the Romanians outside Romania.

Technically speaking, this category should not include all the subjects of Category:History of Romania, but I suggest we make it so, for simplicity.

I am waiting for suggestions. Dpotop 19:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for suggestions. If no suggestions arrive, I will create the category this evening, using the name I choose. Dpotop 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I re-created Category:Romanian history. Dpotop 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dahn and Anittas bickering over grammar issues.

Dpotop, before I jump into the needless complications of your proposals, I have to ask: are you familiar with the English word "the"? As in "History of the Romanians". Dahn 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are soooo smart and knowledgeable.

Now, that I caressed your ego, can we get to business?

So, if you have a proposal, make it. From what I know, what I proposed in the section title is correct from a grammaticap POV. If it does not sound very English, which is possible, because I am not a native, let's use another name. For instance: "History of the Romanian people", or something else, Mr. SmartGuy. Now, if you refer to me forgetting the in the text, it's just an error, no need to feel superior about it. Dpotop 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean to say "forgetting the the"... Dahn 20:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That would also be incorrect. He should have said 'forgotten the word the.' Replace the word "the" with another word, such as 'man.' Let us try it. What is the correct context: to say "forgetting man," or "forgetting the man" or "forgetting the word man"? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the "the" was a quote from another text (and it was, regardless of whether Dpotop marks quotes or not), "forgetting the the" was the verbatim for what he was attempting to compose. If you are here to launch into speculations about how that is not correct simply because you have something else in mind, it's needless to point out what would not work in that particular argument. If you are here to tell me how many other versions could also be correct, well... you're preaching to a very jaded choir. Dahn 21:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to say that your version would be gramatically correct, but incorrect in the context. If you say "forgetting the man," the context makes it sound as if he forgot a man (an object), even if we know the meaning of his message; therefore, he needs to specify what was forgotten. He forgot the word, so needs to say 'forgetting the word man.' It is irrelevant what he quoted and what you choose to quote him for saying. I also think that both versions of "History of Romanians" (which is a direct translation from Istoria Romanilor) and "History of the Romanians," are awkward. Even here you need to specify things, either by writing something like "History of the Romanian People" or "The History of Romania." It is awkward to underscore "Romanians" by adding a "the" (I don't have to specify "the" for being a word, because the "a" in front of it makes that clear), as in "...the Romanians." Also, if anything, it is the word history which is often underscored, as in "The History of...," or "A History of..." You rarely see, if ever, a title composed of just "History of X." --Thus Spake Anittas 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Anittas, but I have no patience nor energy to explore your parallel use of English, especially when most of your arguments are constructed ad hoc. Allow me though to point out one more thing, though: the "People" part goes against conventions (for one, because wikipedia does not capitalize all nouns in its own titles, categories etc, as you should have known by now. Even though I do not encourage such awful categories, overstepping and messing up others for the sake of making a marginal point, let me indicate thisun (note: "the"; note: not "People", and not "people" either). What say you elaborate more on your neo-linguistics there? Dahn 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That category was created by User:Panonian, which I doubt helps your argument. I stand by what I said: it is an awkward way of saying it. Here is an example that may help my argument: click here. I am sorry you are out of energy, though. Well, goodbye. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When you see an instance of "History of Germans", ring me up. As for the rest: l'esprit de l'escalier. Dahn 05:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, I don't know if it helps, but I give you a lifelong license to correct my grammar on sight, even on talk pages, if you feel it does not change the sense of the sentence (I reserve the right to revert if I feel the sense was changed, but I give up the right to criticise you for correcting in the first place). Like in the previous case (and I do acknowledge the corrections I made following your remark). Note that doing so would have spared half a page of bickering over who pisses higher writes better English. Dpotop 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify something for you, Dpotop: when anyone creates an ungrammatical category, that causes a problem for the project - it is a headache to take it to the discussion process just to rename it, especially when this is to be done because one editor didn't bother enough with it. You see, had you decided to up and create it would have made it difficult to correct - alas, this is not the first time you're playing around with concepts and words to simulate awareness of how this project works. Furthermore, I think that the category you created as a consequence of this discussion is inconsistent, whimsical and ultimately pointless. Given what you have been posting on this very page in the past eons, just the prospect of carrying out a debate with you leaves me with a bitter taste. Dahn 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And let me clarify something for you, Dahn: "when anyone creates an ungrammatical category," and they ask for the opinion of others, why not help them out instead of causing a "headache" in the "discussion process"? Why not say, 'Hey, Dpotop, how about we rename the category to 'Insert name here,' because it sounds better for 'Insert reason here'; then redirect the old name to the new category and that's that. Five minutes later, everything is solved. Instead, you post on this site as if you own the right to be an asshole and insult people to the left and right, making the discussions "inconsistent, whimsical and ultimately pointless" and "just the prospect of carrying out a debate with you leaves me with a bitter taste." --Thus Spake Anittas 21:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll break it down for you again: suggesting to Dpotop that he should not create an ungrammatical category is precisely what I did here; part two of this argument is that the category need not have been created, but explaining that to people who cannot already see why, and whose contributions to this page and others involve countless speculations about my character and motivations (for lack of any reasonable argument), is not the high point of my day. And what you posted just below should clarify why I'll never take lessons in civility from the likes of you. Dahn 05:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You keep trying to explaining things to me, as if I don't understand the issue, but it is you who seem to not understand. It does not matter if you are right on all accounts. Your hostility and rudeness cannot be justified. They are not logical and they are wasting our time. Additionally, Dpotop's English is just fine. If he makes a mistake, it can be corrected, just as your mistakes can be corrected. There are other editors, whose English is worse, and which you don't seem to have a problem with. This makes me think that one's English skills is not the issue here, but something else. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is just great mind-reading, Anittas, coming from the man who used this page to advertise (again) his nonsense about the Wallachian ethos. The fact is that you cannot explain how I would have "simply" edited out a category with an incorrect title, you're just here to dump more invectives and point fingers. Do you want me to translate your remarks below, for a sample of "hostility and rudeness"?

And, yes, as I have indicated above, the issue is, to a certain degree, "something else": creating an arbitrary category for what is, in all likelihood, the same content, and me having to explain to two allegedly reliable contributors just what is wrong about that (when both of them have become known for habitually harassing me and other editors). Your comment about my relation to the English professed by other editors is also willy-nilly: I have no problem with real or imagined atrocities in English (theirs, yours, or Dpotop's) as long as they don't make it into the articles; and I have a big problem with arbitrary English when it is used in creating categories, for the very simple reason that it is much harder to correct. Dahn 16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, I think you have a problem:

1. You are not even neutral in tone (i.e. factual), but plainly patronizing and aggressive. Your text was not a mere "the title you propose is gramatically incorrect," it was "you don't know English", which is totally irrelevant to a wikipedia where many editors are at level en-3 and less.
2. You proposed no solution, meaning that you are not trying to help.
3. Most of all, you evoked higher-order arguments along the lines "before I jump into the needless complications of your proposals". This is very helpful, thanks, but can you actually jump in (and cease explaining how superior you are).

In the end, you produced several useless edits which certainly consumed more of our time than a simple factual edit would have. Because, of course, your time is of no concern to me or other editors. I only have to care about content and my time. Dpotop 12:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition: I see you insist on not liking me. Well, I don't like you, either, and I am actively avoiding you. However, try to remain polite and factual when we have to interact. Please. Dpotop 12:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't kid the kidder, Dpotop. Dahn 16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, thanks for your remarks, which I consider pertinent. However, I did not fully understand the text below. :) Dpotop 12:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sa nu te lesi injosit de asta. Neamul lui se duce la capasuni in Spania si se intoarce cu masina straina, clacsonand in tot satul. Fiecare cu caracterul lui. Daca el se simte bine cand injoseste pe altii; cand scuipa pe oameni in fata; si cand arunca prunci la lupi, cine suntem noi sa-l judecam pe el? Presupun ca domnul Level-5 nu a citit Meditatiile lui Marcus Aurelius.

Book I

Alexander the Platonist cautioned me against frequent use of the words 'I am too busy' in speech or correspondence, except in cases of real necessity; saying that no one ought to shrink the obligations due to society on the excuses of urgent affairs.

Level-5 nu a cunoscut nici un Alexander. El a cunoscut pe parintii lui care ii spuneau sa invete si sa fie mai destept decat copilul vecinului, ca nu cumva sa-si faca familia de rusine. El a fost intuit sa despretuie pe altii si sa linguseasca cu cei la nivel inalt din societate sau de oameni de care se poate folosi.

It was the critic Alexander who put me on my guard against unnecessary fault-finding. People should not be sharply corrected for bad grammar, provincialism, or mispronouncation; it is better to suggest the proper expression by tactfully introducing it oneself in, say, one's reply to a question or one's acquiescence in their sentiments, or into a friendly discussion of the topic itself (not of the diction), or by other suitable form of reminder.

Level-5 a fost si el instruit de critici; critici care tendeaza sa batjocoreasca pe altii, sa rada de limitatile lor si sa se scalde in lacul lor de aroganta. El isi doreste ca restul sa se lese condusi de cei cu bucatele de hartii unde scrie Nota 10; iar cand asta nu se intampla, incep sa-ti jigneasca inteligenta ca se te simti ca ultimul om din lume. Tot acesti oameni cer ultimii bani de la tarani ca sa le dea o injectie. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, it is simply ironic that a person can stand here and criticize my supposed snobbery, and in so very disgusting terms while at it, and at the same time speculate on my upbringing. As for the conspiracy theories you keep coming up with, I suggest you present them to people who are paid to listen and can offer help. Dahn 15:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)