Misplaced Pages

User talk:Biruitorul: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:36, 9 April 2009 editNick-D (talk | contribs)Administrators106,130 edits DRV← Previous edit Revision as of 14:02, 9 April 2009 edit undoVanjagenije (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators130,568 edits →Response: new sectionNext edit →
Line 346: Line 346:
==Deletion review for ]== ==Deletion review for ]==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 06:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC) An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 06:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

== Response ==

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

Revision as of 14:02, 9 April 2009

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4

Veşnicia s-a născut la sat :)

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

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

Excuse me for intruding. Is it official that we should only ave articles or Romanian communes, and not for every village? On the Romanian WP they decided otherwise, and that in part helped them reach 50,000 articles (2 years ago). I'm asking because here I kept separate articles only for communes of Moldova (btw, help with those would be greatly appreciated), the situation in Moldova being slightly different (many one-village communes). Quite some times ago, I asked once how is it done here for Romania, and did not receive a definte answer. Dc76\ 22:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
To barge in myself, and answer your dilemma for Moldova: set your criterion on the smallest administrative level, nothing below that; if, in Moldova, a village is a commune, write about the village as a commune, and only write about the commune even if it has several villages. I favor the system in Romania because the alternative implies forking info (what is in a village that isn't in its commune? and vice-versa), lots of stubs going nowhere, a venue for people who have nothing to contribute other than write about the most trivial info about the place they stem from, and being more Catholic than the Pope (the info doesn't appear to be covered by standard dictionaries in Romania, which won't usually even mention what villages form part of a commune - which we do/will/would).
Alas, all these things have happened and are happening on the Romanian wikipedia, with tacit encouragement, for, as you say, it helped them reach 50,000... Which was as valuable and intelligent as the communist doctoring of agricultural data to make Romania a "world's best" in rye or barley or jimson weed or whatever. Dahn (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You did not read carefully what I said. :) The alternative for Moldova simply did not make sense, so I dismissed it. There are 1,679 localities in Moldova. There are 65 cities (5 with municipality status, 60 without), 917 communes, and further 697 villages that are subordinated to either cities or communes. Hence, there are many one-village communes, which would have an article of their own anyway. The problem with the alternative is also that it suggests having an article for the villge X and a different one for the commune which center at X. In total, the potential for Moldova is 65+917=982 articles (plus a couple villages notable on their own). Of the 697 localities that would not have separate articles, there a few (57 by my count) with population over 1,000:
Long list of villages


To these, of course, you would add some notable villages, such as this one you will love:
  • Mana, commune of Selişte, Orhei district
cheers, Dc76\ 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So, if I read you right, we agree that not starting articles on villages makes no sense. Dahn (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I think we all agree that starting articles on villages makes no sense. Biruitorul 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, crud: you're right. It's that extra not... not even a double negative to begin with. I originally wanted to write "not starting articles... makes sense" and then I thought, "is this emphasized enough?"; and then I started backspacing, but when I reached the "not", it looked oh so familiar that I must have forgotten what i wanted to do next. Trouble is it's not the first time I come up with the exact contradiction of what I want to say and not realize it. If you guys are really nice, I promise I'll let you call such a mishap "pulling a Dahn" from now on :D. Dahn (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I had one more revamp to push in, as I bumped into stuff that turned out to be more and more interesting (btw: the comments he and Patapievici made about wikipedia are not just RS and notable, but they may also hopefully make admins on the Romanian side wake up and smell the coffee, if they haven't yet done so while reading what the alteredmedia crowd had to say). I'm gonna have to log off soon, but before I do: congrats to both you and Mentatus! For the seaside stuff: I for one would rather keep them as "resorts" and remove the village cats, but merger works to. As for Giurtelec... at the risk of making a Lăpuşneanu kind of promise, there'll be snip-snip when I return (if I forget to, which I sometimes do, please remind me). Dahn (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know hoe to pick at it: it has multiple issues,and I don't have a clear idea of what (if any) needs to be merged. Of the references cited, those that aren't just bogus (the editor appears to cite his personal interview with the mayor...) do not indicate their link to Giurtelec. Plus, just how many bogus pages link back to that article? (It's not just the cemeteries and buildings, but also personal names of people who are not notable under any definition of the word.) I'm not sure if they should also be redirected to the commune or deleted and salted.
At the moment, I say it's better and easier to remove all that's in there and redirect pure and simple. All relevant data on the commune could be reintroduced from reliable sources, properly cited - but I doubt that there's anything from the article which one would really pine for at the end of the process. Dahn (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Not only that I argue not starting separate articles on villages (except Mana, of course, :-) ), but for over a year that I looked into the localities issue, I have editted everywhere to show up as ] or village name. The list I have given is simply nostalgia. Dc76\ 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lemme start by thanking you for the latest batch: I will definitely put it to (very) good use, sooner more than later. I absolutely loved the Bogza painting (I had never seen it before), but unfortunately I don't think it and others can actually be used - Brauner died in 1966; but of course it can and should be discussed in several articles. Btw, we wikipedians have something in common with art dealers: cynicism - the more artists die young, the more it is to our advantage :).
About the block and the calumnies: I hear you, brother. There is much confirmation of Murphian laws here: reliable editors have to seasonally prove themselves just because some twat shouted something to the Committee of Public Safety, and, at the other end, some sort "diplomatic immunity/can I freshen that up for you, sir" mystique develops around some of the most disturbing trolls and most glaring sockpuppets (and, like clockwork, just when you think you've had enough of this, the admins discover the evidence that was there from the beginning and block the poor souls). Most of the times, those who shout are sockpuppets, and the two issues of competence become intertwined. And, yes, apologies are in order whenever this happens: not just because they're polite, but also because they give one something palpable to present when some other rebel rouser decides to call attention to your block summary.
Galaţi. No, I don't know about it as such - only read that such incidents there and in other cities were used by Antonescu as pretexts for some of the deportations. Yes, it could be that NYT is wrong about this - but the incident itself seems rather obscure.
And thanks for the links. Keep an eye out for the AfDs. Dahn (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
To complicate the matter further: did you see the new interwiki links on Giurtelec? Guess who started spamming all wikipedias he can read... Dahn (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwh. Dahn (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Patience. Once the eerie silence goes away... Dahn (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
LMAO (in fact, I find this difficult to right, because I'm still twitching with laughter). In that scenario, I export it only after I award the editor in question the Order of Victory ;). Dahn (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

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

Mihail Fărcăşanu

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

Governors of Madras

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

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

Stan Lee

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

Maramures

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

Two years ago, I moved Maramureş to Maramures and was reverted within minutes by Khoikhoi. He explained that once WP uses diacritics, they should be used. I believe that Maramureş is the correct place for the article to stay. Marmatia (in Latin) is less notable, and Maramaros (in Hungarian; I don't know the proper diacritics by heart) is used in more historic contexts (esp. 1867-1918, 1940-1944).
As far as I know, Maramuresh is only one version in Ukrainian, and it is closer to Rusyn speech, the other version being Maramaroschyna, or something like that. The name is in fact used very rarely in Ukraine, AFAIK. People from other parts of Ukraine do not know so much about Zakarpattia Oblast. To them, you should explain: the historical region whose 1/2 is in Romania and the other 1/2 are the 4 eastern-most of the 13 raions of the Zakarpattia Oblast. So, unless the name goes exponentially in usage in Ukrainian, IMHO, Maramureş is the only name we can stick with.
If we seach English sourses, we find a lot with it. It is true that the majority of them refer specifically to the present-day Maramureş County, but nevertheless if we read carefully, quite a number of those (even if it's 20%, that's still some large number) refer specifically to the historical region, and not to the county. And I don't imagine that number anything other than increasing in the future.
I checked now his edits. They seem fine. However, it's not over, yet. Here is what remains to do:

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

I have created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Moldova/Bibliography. Please, fill free to add sourses you deem useful. Myself, I will go through my browser's favorites, then through books and sites I used on WP but not to full value. Also, I'll have to recall dosens that you told me about. As well as ... google search. Obviously, this is not something to be done right away. It would take time, but I hope in the end it would be something useful. Dc76\ 02:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly this kind of sourses I meant. :-) If the books are available online, even only partially, link to them.
I would go as far as adding even websites, but with the caveat that if they are judged of poor quality, they should be removed, or at least a note to be added explaining to what extent the sourse is cridible. (For example, a legionary site would be all right for verifying mebership, doctrine, etc. In a sense, it is a primary spourse, but obviously not a secondary sourse. Adding it to the list should be ok, but a note primary sourse only, or something of the kind, should be placed.)
I have attempted prevously to do it in my userspace. But I realized, I would be unable to find and read all these books by myself. However, what I suggest now is larger than what is in my userspace. I want to add the sourses that we alrady found, but did not get to using them on WP to full extent. In particular, I would comb through the reference lists of various articles and fish out.
To be honest, I started this list for very selfish reasons: I have a pritty long "favorites" list in my web brouser, and there it's impossible to add comments about quality, it's more tedious to classify by topic, etc, etc. Not to mention that it wouldn't be collaborative. One thing I learned on WP is that collaboration is a real boost. Dc76\ 03:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PMs

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

Btw: should the presence of the Ro heads of state template on an article automatically add that article to the generic category? We have a tree (I tried to sort it out, because some of the newer categories made absolutely no sense), and the template only puts them back on the basic level. Dahn (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me visit you with one more issue. This is good in that there is at least one place grouping a single variant of the bishopric names (I came to it searching for that). But do you perchance have the strength to copyedit it (they went from no links to everything in bold, and it looks like a really bad nosebleed!), and maybe see if some of the links aren't already filled? I can't see anyone else suited for this (yes, several master the info, but only you master the info and English and logic in using the wiki format; plus, you also have the persuasive power were those guys need extra coaching on what "the point" is). Btw, I really think the articles should be structured around the office ("Bishop", "Metropolitan"), and certainly not duplicated for office and institution - but we currently have a mess (even those that refer to institution fluctuate nonchalantly between "Metropolis", "Metropolitan bishopric" and other variants). Dahn (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Lovely. For the dioceses: sure, I'll bend to whatever convention, as long as we follow one. The template I hadn't picked up from your edits - but now that I see it, I consider myself satisfied as far as standardizing the links. Elena: congrats - it's very informative, and, yes, fair. Even if I think people really are meaner to her than required or desirable, her career is a prolonged scandal - meaning that your text neutrally reflects a reality where gossipy stuff is the norm, and where she doesn't seem to mind very much. In fact, you might have missed that one bit about her using a mop. I'll go as far as to say that the article is more professional than she is - which is unfair not to her, but, if anything, to those better-qualified Romanian public figures whose articles are shooting practice for monomaniacal editors and IPs. In any case, and since I didn't get to answer your query the first time around: yes, I'm all for having articles on all those people (of whom Udrea is one). If they look like this one, bring them on! Dahn (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Hey, no problem - glad to have helped. And the other thing... it's been so long since I took a look at those articles... but I'll get there eventually, if nothing is done in the meantime. Sssslllooooooowwwly but surely... Dahn (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of this Stalinist jargon: "Oh yes, there is a noted acuteness to the class struggles in those countries, and the conditions are ripe for a passage to the next mode of production - it looks like they could benefit from the experience of its Soviet brothers. Now, we are not an insurrectionist country, and we have always advanced peace in our relations with the capitalist world, but we feel now confident enough to progress on the front of building socialism in other countries. But this goal is best achieved by the creation of popular fronts: some time should pass between the initial call of to revolution, leaving the genuine workers time to purge their own ranks of wreckers and constructing a partnership with the progressive bourgeois parties before assistance from our workers' state is provided. Otherwise, the enemies of socialism in one country blah-blah-blah... There were, after all, examples were the workers' movement was set back twenty years because of bad timing, provocation and over-eagerness, and there have been voices trying to insinuate that the workers' state and the international workers' movement are not walking side by side on the path of socialism, but rather accomplices in an imperialist plot. Let the sister parties first gather some more support from the working people and the enlightened bourgeoisie in their respective countries." Dahn (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Serial killer infobox template

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

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

ANI

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

Hungarian diaspora

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

AfD nomination of David Parker controversy

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

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

DYK nomination of Elena Udrea

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

Re: Elena Udrea

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

New section (the other one is getting too big)

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

Right. Well, I performed some adjustments, and hope you're okay with them. Later today, I'll start something on the Antonescu sandbox (-and please, please contribute to it if you feel the urge); it'll summarize his participation in this from all notable perspectives, and I'll afterward start summarizing the summary (or its relevant bit) wherever they are needed. Capital punishment is on that list, but I'm prioritizing the Antonescu article for now - as Bogdan said, it's about time someone did it. Dahn (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete/merge as spam and POV forks (not to mention ungrammatical). Consider letting an admin in, because this carries the risk of getting out of hand. You can count on my vote, if you plan to start this yourself. Dahn (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes, I would like to visit both Sima and Mihai sometime in the future - remember my old proposal about sandboxing a king? But I am gonna need some kind of break from this area after Antonescu.
About Mosora: is she notable-notable? I have my doubts, so that would make it an AfD. In any case, the solution is to stubify Dahn (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What do you mean "still"? Was he actually lying there alive before 1938?
I have to say a Romania ruled by Averescu instead of Antonescu would make for interesting alternate history: what would have happened differently? I can only presume things would have been much more Vichy-esque, Horthyesque, or maybe even Mussolinian, and the Legionaries could have stepped in as the Arrow Crosses... If the latter is true, the Romani people would probably have been left unscathed, but I can also picture a full-blown application of the Shoah. Dahn (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

2. I agree. Did you try telling Raul?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Elena Udrea

Updated DYK query On March 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elena Udrea, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

Hi!

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

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

co-nom

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

Hancock Manor

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

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

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

Peter Martin

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gayle Edlund Wilson

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

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

"No"??

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

Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania (Spring 1944)

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

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

User: Vicente Calibo de Jesus Articles

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

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

George Nicolescu

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

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

List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population

Hi,

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Page moves, some involving diacritics

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

Thanks

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

AfD nomination of Moldova–South Korea relations

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

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

You recent changes to the George Călinescu article

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

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

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

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

Slavery

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

Hainan Island Incident

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

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

Admin?

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

The Moldovan People

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

HAHAHA! You're so ashamed of your own opinions that you are afraid to expose them publicly (No, I won't publish your e-mails unless you allow me to). Poor guy. I prefer Romanians like Olahus. At least they practice what they preach (OK, their opinions won't get them fines in most EU countries, like yours, but still). I'll leave you to editing, probably your only happiness in the world full of conspiracies you're living in.Xasha (talk)
Oh come now, Xasha, your simplistic portrayal belies that (yet again) you're blinded by the glittering baubly appeal of your own POV (yet again) mistaken for brilliance. PetersV       TALK 03:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from commenting if you aren't aware of the content of the e-mails Biruitorul sent to me.Xasha (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I'll chose to believe responsible international organizations over Romanian media of dubious qulity. It's important to notice the difference between protests by peaceful demonstrators after elections considered unfree by the West (like the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine or the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia) and the intensive violence by groups which seems to attempt a coup, following the Moldovan elections, considered overall free by foreign observers.Xasha (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
A coup is the right answer. Propel Chirtoacă to the Presidency, proclaim Union, send Romanian troops across the Prut, and be done once and for all with the farcical Moldovan "state". What should have happened in August 1991 at the latest is finally unfolding. "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" - Biruitorul 00:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep dreaming.Xasha (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
@Xasha: how many electoral circumscritions have been supervized by OSCE? 10? 20? 50? How many electoral circumscritions are in Moldova? 500? 1000? 2000? And how can you be so sure about the correctness of the report? How can you say that the voting was ok as long as mental ill persons as well as the deceased persons have voted ??? And how you can you imagine that the formation of opinion between the citizens is possible in a country like Moldova as long as the Romanian TV-channels are almost entirely forbidden while the Russian ones are completely free? --Olahus (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The US Department of State, the EU Presidency and the OSCE can't be all wrong. Really, I (and most real people) don't care about what Mrs. Nicholson "feels", we care about proofs, and as she clearly said they are none. Ziua is a noted nationalist newspaper, so has no importance. As for the accusations in Cotidianul, it's not impossible. Small scale fraud always happens. I remember that in 2004 all the Romanian media talked about "electoral turism": a large number of buses filled with people cruised around Romania, voting in every village the group passed through. Oh, and again you prove you don't knwo a thing about life in Moldova. In Moldova you can watch almost all Romanian channels (while in Romania you can only watch less than a hour of Moldovan television very early in the morning on the TVR2 - or that's how things were a year ago, the Moldovan programme may have been eliminated by now)Xasha (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Deletion review for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations

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

Response

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