User talk:Bogdangiusca/Archive14

Romanian wikipedia and the liberties it takes - please look into this

Hi, Bogdan. I was hoping you'll have a look into this, as you are in a position to review this conflict. I recently intervened in respect to ro:Vladimir Tismăneanu, where sources such as the Civic Media forum and Tricolorul are still being used, in defiance of rules. I explained my position on the talk page, and referenced the rules that make those sources be untenable on wikipedia (including the cornerstone "Verifiability, not truth"). The first part of the conversation was with Gutza, who first admitted that the source was dubious. My assessment was shared by Plinul cel tanar, who noted that Civic Media does not appear to have credentials. Gutza alleged, without presenting any proof, that I am somehow connected to Vladimir Tismăneanu - an accusation that should raise concerns in itself - and that there is a conflict of interests. MariusM intervened himself, expressing support for the link, and claiming that it should be kept because it expresses a relevant viewpoint. In one of his edits, he introduced what it turns out was a self-published source, contributed to the neofascist site Altermedia - this is a conflict of interests! He also keeps pushing back the link to Tricolorul, claiming that it is reliable enough, because Tismăneanu never contested it (I asked him to show me the rule that said he should, and, of course, there was no such thing). He also accused me of lacking "deontology" because I said Victor Roncea lied and MariusM thinks he did not - I told him that I am not a journalist and that I only edit on the basis of rules of conduct on wiki. He repeated the claim that I am related to Tismăneanu, based on Gutza's earlier allegations. Gutza himself returned with similar comments: together, they posted and reposted false warnings on the talk page I was using, even though I told them it was harassment; MariusM threatened me (he received no warning). Please, please, would you please have a look at ro:Discuţie:Vladimir Tismăneanu and intervene? It's getting out of hand, and am left facing ad hominems, insinuation and what seems to be a coterie. I have no energy to go through the higher stage of the process there, especially since they all seem to be backing each other when it comes to issues such as this one. I could really use an authoritative voice who has experience in editing there and has clearly a better grasp of the WP:RS issues than those guys. Dahn 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And check this out! Dahn 04:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bogdan, please look here, Dahn is making untolerable personal attacks against me, he is accusing me of vandalism and of other things (in fact, I think he don't like that I dare to have a different opinion than him). Regarding the so-called "threat", I already gave an explanation to AdiJapan, is good also for you.--MariusM 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Be still, my trembling heart! After one erases sourced info on the basis of it "not being relevant" just because it exposes the nature of attacks against Tismăneanu, one cannot be said to have engaged in vandalism. Oh, my. Would Marius prefer if I took him to WP:AN/I right now?

As for the rest: Bogdan, I trust your judgment. I invoked the clear guidelines of WP:V and WP:BLP for all my arguments, and this person has claimed, well, his own opinion. As for the threat, he has actually been warned about it, whether he "explained" it afterwards or not. Dahn 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not manage yet to read the rather long discussion on Romanian Wikipedia, but here are a few thoughts after a first glance over the debate:

First of all, the rule about reliable sources is a core rule and it's not negotiable.

It's quite clear that Tricolorul should not be used as a source. That newspaper has an amazing record of slander/calumny and of publishing made up information and there's absolutely no reason to call it "reliable" by any definition of that term. Vadim publishes virtually everything he gets from his "informers" and while there might be *some* true information, most of it is bull. We can't personally check each article whether it's true or not.

The site of Civic Media appears to be an one-man show of a journalist, Victor Roncea and since it's some kind of a blog, it lacks editorial control, so it's also not considered a reliable source. I don't know how notable is Victor Roncea or his website, but if they're rather notable, I think some information could be used by attributing it to the website/article, but not being taken as truth. bogdan 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you perchance following this? Dahn (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but from what I see, it's quite futile trying to argue with them. bogdan (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre

Hi. Please check this article Khojaly Massacre as currently it contains strong Azerbaijanian POV. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" student society members

Hi. I noticed that you have removed the word "notable" in the title of a list of members of a student societiy. For consistency, I would request that you do the same for the four or so other organizations with the word "notable" in the titles of their lists shown here: Category:Lists_of_chapters_or_members_of_United_States_student_societies Thanks. 4.235.156.158 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. bogdan (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" is the standard word to use. I have moved the List of Delta Tau Delta notable members back there from "List of Delta Tau Delta members." I request that you do the same for any other pages you moved. I appreciate your interest and enthusiasm, but want to maintain a standard page naming scheme. —ScouterSig 08:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to talk only about notable people, so the keyword "notable" is superfluous everywhere. Please see: Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions:

The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs). Do not use a title like: Xs, famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of notable Xs, nor list of all Xs.

bogdan (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, man, cool. I learn something new about Wikipedia every freaking day. Thank you, then, since that's what I should be doing. —ScouterSig 15:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Miron Cristea

Considering how long ago that information was added, it might be problematic to find the source now. I don't think I added the source because the entire article was unsourced at the time. I am certain that the source exists, as I think I was adding all the content like that from the various catalogs of saints which I was using at the time. I think he was probably from a book called "Orthodox Saints", but I can't really remember specifically at this point. Give me a few days and I'll try to find it again. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

An issue

Hi, Bogdan. Could you please look here (including talk page), and see what, if anything can be done? I'm having difficulties communicating with a single-purpose user there, who doesn't seem to know or care about WP:AGF. The problem has spilled over here, too. (There was a second user involved, also red-linked, but he seems to have quieted down for now.) At any rate, I'm willing to look at a compromise solution, but I don't even know where to start under such continual questioning of motives and uncivil behavior. Turgidson (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bogdan! Could you, please, see that WP:NPOV is respected in Michael I of Romania and Soviet occupation of Romania? This user has been aggressively pushing his pro-King Michael POV's (see Talk), deleting or mislabeling as OR and Weasel some unsavory, but well-referenced information about Michael. I asked for clear proofs for his OR and Weasel tags, which he has yet to produce. Sadly, Turgidson does not even understand what WP:OR entails, since he labels as OR a clear-cut fact, such as Tsar Simeon's status as another surviving head of state from WWII, logically inferred from his regnal years overlapping WWII. Thank you in advance for your mediation and help! Lil' mouse (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

What's with all the attacks from single-purpose accounts and IPs on your userpage? What did you do to these freaks that they keep showing up on my watchlist? Dahn (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's my friend, the Dacian from Los Angeles! :-) bogdan (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't know who that is. Does it have to do with Winona? Dahn (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He has a crush on Winona and her shoplifting habits. bogdan (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dniester

The article was silently moved to "Nistru river" a few days ago, so when I was unable to move it back, I did it by copypasting the contents. However, this left the entire edit history in what is now a redirect. Is there a way to move all that back to the original article? --Illythr (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I did it. One would need to be an admin to do revert that (delete the Dniester article and move the Nistru river over the current contents). bogdan (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought as much. Thanks! --Illythr (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Next step

Bogdan, s you might have seen by now, I was blocked on Romanian wikipedia after I criticized an admin for introducing copyright violations into articles (alongside POVed text). so was the other user who complained about it. The explanation, as given by Radufan and his cronies, was that I was "disrupting activities" (by commenting on the main discussion page they have, and while he was accusing me for the "crime" of not having edited articles!). Three admins were warned by Radufan that, if they do not accept his decision, he is going to do all in his power to have their status revoked. The whole altermedia discussion was where the threats began (because he was removing references to altermedia from articles, User:New World Order was blocked by Radufan, who went against consensus).

This is truly outrageous. What I need to know is where and how to open a debate on the state of an entire wiki project - the antisemitic material it still hosts, the permanent state of copyvio, the failure to ensure quality, the glaring partisanship of some admins and their history of abuse, have made ro:wiki a laughing stock. I am prepared to initiate action, and I would like it if all users who have noted the problems get to comment on this. Dahn (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I maintain a list of anti-semitic articles on my user page there. And while some of them have been deleted, stuff there passes that wouldn't last 5 seconds on en wiki. I've also been following the copyvio thing. It is ridiculous. The anti-semitism might not be illegal, but that certainly is. What is needed is a page where we can detail complaints, with translations in English (because at least the people on the mailing list and the people in power need that to be able to understand the situation). - Francis Tyers · 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am ready to go through the steps required, providing translation and whatever else is necessary. I would not want to be alone in this process, and I'm sure that, like you, there are plenty of users who have been troubled by the issues involved. I would like to know where we should file this, and what results we can expect - I do not aim for the entire Romanian project to be closed, at least not permanently, but something important and large-scale needs to be put in place before it is truly too late. Dahn (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly where we could go. Writing to the mailing lists certainly doesn't help: it would lead to a long discussion, but not towards any decision. bogdan (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this fall within the scope of Meta? I have never contributed there, but I am willing to open an account if it is only just for that. Is appealing to Jimbo Wales directly an option? (I have seen users posting messages there in relation to other wikipedias.) Dahn (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, don't forget to mention to Jimbo the current state of the Romanian education system, as well as the budget normal Romanians can spend on culture. Thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is one example mailing list conversation: http://www.nabble.com/From-Romanian-Wikipedia-2C-the-Nazi-Encyclopedia-to10001253.html - Francis Tyers · 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The revolution can start without me. I'll be away for a few days and as such I won't be checking what's happening here. Have fun playing de-a naziştii şi comuniştii and Merry Christmas!, Happy Festivus!, etc. I hope Moş Crăciun (or Deda Mraz for the Yugoslavs still affected by nostalgia) will bring you something nice! ;-) bogdan (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bom Natal, man. I'll be working on a Festivus miracle.

I'm sorry if it seems like I pestered you (come to think of it, I might have sounded pushy because of the "there are plenty of users who have been troubled by the issues involved" part - but I was actually addressing this to Francis). My main rationale for presenting this here was to ask where this could go, just in case you knew (and, of course, thank you for the tips). I want to reassure you that I respect any decision you take, but that I would appreciate any form of input (for or against) once you have the time, and provided you should want to comment at all. Best, Dahn (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

salut

Intrebare: de ce ti s-a parut de cuviinta ca subiectul "Kord (band)" ar trebui sters? Ai vreun pic idee cat de complicata este pentru un incepator editarea unei pagini pe "Wikipedia" si nu crezi ca ar fi fost interesant ca intainte de a crede de cuviinta ca pagina trebuie sa fie stearsa, sa te informezi un pic si sa afli ca subiectul este intr-adevar notabil? Ar fi foarte frumos sa stiu motivul "NOTABIL" pentru care a fost stearsa acea pagina si as aprecia f. mult daca ar fi readusa. Multumesc anticipat si astept un raspuns.

Okay, am pus pagina la loc, cel puţin temporar. Problema este următoarea: trebuie să dovedeşti că acea formaţie este "notabilă" prin nişte surse independente. De exemplu, ar trebui să existe nişte articole în presă despre această formaţie. bogdan (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ufc_rapid_logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ufc_rapid_logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Crăciun

Un Crăciun şi un An nou fericit!--MariusM (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 06:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ghidul autostopistului galactic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ghidul autostopistului galactic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Madaba removal from Origins of romanians

You have removed madaba from the article, still, you mention that the province should be Dacia in today Bulgaria- Moesia.

Still the map from Madaba, is concerning the only today siria, Israel, Jordan and Sinai. So I've teo questions: 1. Do you have any information reseach that prove that the map is about some representings of of Dacia (even if situated on south of the Danube?), It is possible that madaba map is some sort of Tabula Peutingeriana? 2. If so? It is possible to have a representations of the byzantine town such are Dinogetia and Troesmiss?

I would be interesting to add some links if so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CristianChirita (talk • contribs) 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dams

Recently several articles on dams in Romania have been posted by a user Mario1987. Most have been posted in November 2007 but it is only recently that I have discovered them. Unfortunately they contain incorrect information - actually many of the dams do not exist. I wrote to the user without getting any response.

The problem is that the user confuses dams and hydroelectric plants.

Also the user has designed a template: Power Stations in Romania which is woefully incomplete. There are over 100 hydroelectric plants in Romania and probably over 1000 thermoelectric plants. Having a template which lists only some of them makes no sense at all.

I have marked these articles for deletion. The list includes Template:Power stations in Romania as well as articles Şugag Dam, Şugag Dam, Brădişor Dam, Lotru-Ciunget Dam, Râul Mare Dam, Remeţi Dam and Mărişelu Dam.

You might be aware that I am not only administrator of ro:Wiki, but also that I am an expert in the field and that I have been consistently working on a comprehensive list of articles on rivers in Romania and also that I have written articles on Romanian dams (both in Wikipedia as in technical magazines. I am thus not making these allegations lightly.

Could you please have a look at the articles and take an appropriate decision. I am willing to provide any additional information you consider necessary.

Regards. Afil (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

hi there friend !

I want to show you some article www.ziare.ro/articol.php?id=1195855382

this is only a sample, if you want more about this subject you only have to ask. Regards ! Adrianzax (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Communist Romania

Has been moved to Socialist Republic of Romania. I think this is wrong. Could you please take a look at the comments on the talk page, and see what you think? Thank you. Turgidson (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The history of Romania template

Hi, and Happy New Year. I have a question/proposal: is it possible to turn the template into a horizontal one and move it around in articles accordingly? It's really taking a toll on texts such as Wallachian Revolution of 1848. Dahn (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! It is possible, but a horizontal template would be inconsistent with the rest of the templates from Category:History by nation navigational boxes. bogdan (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then would it perhaps be possible to make it more condensed without dropping any of the entries? As far as I can see, templates in the category you mention tend to be more manageable. Dahn (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Is it better? bogdan (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better. Thank you! Dahn (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Theater Hopper deletion

Hello, I noticed that you deleted the Theater Hopper comic article as non-notable. Unfortunately, I disagreed and blundered into the process by recreating the article without including the authorship history information, which another admin pointed out to me. I apologize for not taking the matter up with you beforehand and I'd like to request that you restore the original article for the reasons I noted in the recreated article's discussion page. If you still disagree with the article's notability, please let me know. Thanks! -Fearfulsymmetry (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Indiana Jones Atlantis cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Indiana Jones Atlantis cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trolling on Romania

User mrg3105mrg3105 is ranting into Talk:Romania with an hallucinatory semieducated delirium about Romania, its name and etimology. He deploys such a disruptive energy, that the two or three users who are trying to temper him seem overwhelmed. I think it's time for an intervention. Thanks. --84.153.17.16 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Romanian profanity

Hi. Can I ask you to semi-protect Romanian profanity? It's not that we don't need everyones contribution, but the article has been the target of persistent vandalism (considering the subject it's perfectly understandable...). The current instability of the article discourages earnest editors willing to clean it up. Thanks. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Could one of you guys provide me with an assessment of whether the article as a whole is encyclopedic material, and let me know if it can actually survive on this main project. While I have no opinion for or against, it would be worth knowing if one should make links to it in various articles, or if such links will rot. The last time I checked, it was tagged to be moved on another project - this is why I chose not to link to it in Geo Bogza, an article that could have used the link. Dahn (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it can survive, if it would be rewritten in the manner of Latin profanity. Currently, it's an unsourced list of slang. bogdan (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Concerning potential expansion and the likes, I think this can indeed go places. One could consider exploring the taboos in Romanian society and literature and how they were cast aside by the likes of Bogza, and, since I'm hanging around in that area, Mateiu. There's a trove of such material I could contribute eventually, but why do I have the feeling that the main part isn't gonna go anywhere for the time being? Dahn (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The ș again

Please see this, this, and this. A wikipedia divided against itself cannot stand. And why is it that we are still discussing these issues after year upon year of editing? Dahn (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Francis is trolling again. He knows the issue and the arguments... :/ bogdan (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So, would you please undo the moves (also note that he introduced ș in spellings withing the articles in question, so you could look into that as well)? Dahn (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I moved the articles: I'll look into the articles, too. bogdan (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. bogdan (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That guy

This is the third picture he uploaded, and it has at least one clear problem (the Enescu picture). The man was told repeatedly that this is not the way to go at it, and yet he persists in doing that. When coupled with all the disruption and trolling, shouldn't it at least buy him a serious conversation with the guys over at AN/I? Dahn (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh... Dahn (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this. I remember i struggled with it a lot, wanting to know just what could they possibly be calling it today? And I actually googled all variants I could think of. Dahn (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm considering starting an article on the magazine unu (well, not now, but in the future). A long time ago, when I was looking through articles on completely unrelated subjects, I noticed that it is actually possible to start articles with lower-case titles, when the subject made a point of using lower-case. I admit I have not checked to see if this is still accepted. Do you happen to know what is needed for that to be possible, or is better/more appropriate to have all titles starting with an upper case? Dahn (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't create articles with names that begin with a lowercase, but you can add {{lowercase}} at the top of the article text and it would display it like that. see iPod. bogdan (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you! Dahn (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. There are two unilateral and rather absurd article moves by Nergaal that I would like you to undo, please. One is here (per the actual meaning of the word cinematography, and per what other such articles are usually called) and the other is here (it seems this was a case of putting the carriage before the horse - the article is needed, while the list we could do without, meaning that it should eventually be turned into prose; plus, the title is in defiance of naming conventions). Thank you. Dahn (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask it actually be called "Cinema of Romania", as originally? Everyone else uses the "cinema of ..." formula. Biruitorul (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bessarabia

Why you putting false data. I see you like puting more great data about Romanian at Romanians article and at Besarabia in Rusia empire (you can watch at Charles King book at page 24 to see you artificial put much more big number than reality) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donchev (talk • contribs) 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you assuming it's false data? It was taken from Hitchins, p. 240-241. Yes, I noticed King has different data and I'm searching for a third source. bogdan (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The annexation of Bessarabia profoundly affected the composition of the population. Most striking during the century of Russian rule was the steady decrease in the percentage of Moldavians. According to the census of 1817, 86 per cent of the inhabitants (419,420 out of 482,630) were Moldavians, while 6.5 per cent (30,000) were Ukrainians and 4.2 per cent (19,130) were Jews. By 1856, Moldavians had fallen to 74 per cent (736,000 out of 990,000), while Ukrainians and Jews had risen to 12 and 8 per cent, respectively. In 1897, 56 per cent (1,092,000 out of 1,935,412) were Moldavian, 18.9 per cent Ukrainians and Russians, and 11.7 per cent Jews. These changes were primarily the result of immigration from neighbouring provinces promoted by Russian authorities. Moldavians formed an overwhelming majority in the central part of the province, but in the far northern and southern districts other ethnic groups together outnumbered them.32 For example, in Hotin uezd in the north 53.3 per cent of the population were Ukrainian and only 23.8 per cent Moldavian, and in Akkerman uezd in the south 26.7 per cent were Ukrainian, 9.7 per cent Russian, and 16.4 per cent Moldavian. In the centre the countryside belonged to the Moldavians, whereas the cities took on an increasingly cosmopolitan character. (Hitchins, p. 241-242)

Hitchins cites:

• Ion Nistor, "Istoria Basarabiei" (Cernăuţi, 1923), 288-9, 299-300, 303-4;
• Iakim S. Grosul and Ilya G. Budak, "Ocherki istorii narodnogo khoziaistvo Bessarabii" (1861-1905 gg.) (Kishinev, 1972), 42-51.

King cites

• Zashchuk, "Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii", 1865, p. 186;
• Zamfir C. Arbore, "Basarabia în secolul XIX", 1898 p.118
• 1897 Russian census

bogdan (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the reason why it is this way in Ion Nistor, Istoria Basarabiei, which has both sets of data: the one with 56% is "by ethnicity" and the one with 49% is "by language". If one spoke Russian or Ukrainian, he would be automatically listed as Russian or Ukrainian speaker, regardless of the ethnicity or whether it was the first language or not. bogdan (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The tables are on p. 213 (labeled "după naţionalitate") and p. 304 (labeled "după limba maternă"). I'll look at them later. bogdan (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the older censuses, both Nistor and King cite Zashchuk, someone should check the source, IMO. bogdan (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Medeleni

An article that you have been involved in editing, Medeleni, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medeleni. Thank you.  Tivedshambo (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First mention of Albanians & some problems

Found and older one. :) From the age of Samuilo's reign. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great find! :-) bogdan (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you usually veer out of articles that are problematic, but could you please make an exception? It's about the Romanians of Serbia and Vlachs of Serbia articles. Please check 'em out. Cheers. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly from reading the (age)-old articles and listening to your words, I though I knew something about the ancient Vlach society - now, I don't understand anything at all and can't make heads or tails in this...? ;( --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Both articles are a confusing mess. I don't even know where to start. Perhaps I should try to remove the unsourced parts and try to look for sources. :-) bogdan (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Shoot. I have the best trust in you. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bessarabia in the Russian Empire, 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.

--Archtransit (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Technology History

I noticed that you have edited Ancient Roman technology, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology History? Thanks, Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of people who died before the age of 30

An editor has nominated List of people who died before the age of 30, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died before the age of 30 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you delete my page

Did you delete my article about Kord(band) without checking my references to reliable sources that i provide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukassandi (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a link to a youtube video, not a reliable reference. Being a guest at Teo does not automatically makes one notable. If you think I am wrong, you can bring up the issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review. (see the "Steps to list a new deletion review" section) bogdan (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think that being invited in a tv-show which is very well known, it's not notable and a reliable reference, than i should think that you have a personal problem with this article. So, should i tell you that's not right? Reconsider your deletion and bring it back.

Anyway i'll inform about this untidiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukassandi (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

reliable source

is the library of Timis County a reliable source enough ?

http://www.bjt.ro/bv/ScritoriBanateni/VALENAS_Liviu/Valenasmiscarea.pdf Adrianzax (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: no.

Long answer: That's an interview with an Iron Guard member (Mircea Dimitriu, "Secretarul General al Miscarii Legionare"), so it's simply what some guy claims. Basically, you're replacing what a great historian (Zigu Ornea) says in a with what a nazi says. Just because it's published in a book, it doesn't make it reliable. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. bogdan (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Ornea's book has been translated to be published at the Columbia University Press. bogdan (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I get it, all the sources that doesn't fit your claims are false. What about quoting some sources when making statements about HIS bio in his article and not about his father's. I don't care where it has been published, give sources where it says about his biography and not about his father's.Adrianzax (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.fgmanu.net/ is a site of the Iron Guard

http://www.codreanu.ro/ is a site of the Noua Dreaptă

http://www.altermedia.info/ is a site affiliated with Noua Dreaptă

the Timişoara book is an interview with an Iron Guard member.

Do you see the pattern, how all your sources are fascist and/or extremist and none is written by a real historian? bogdan (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And what's the connection between the political orientation of this site and his biography ? i'm not quoting anything from those sites, only his bio, Here's another source http://www.velesova-sloboda.sled.name/misc/codreanu-eiserne-garde.html I hope you know german. And I said quote me some sources by historians about his bio not about his father's. That article is about him.. ok, bogdan ? Adrianzax (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that a book published in Nazi Germany and hosted by a Russian neonazi website? Wow, you sure know how to pick your sources. ;-)

Of course the article is about him. But it's common to write a few words about his family. bogdan (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bogdan, the man was a nazi, where do you expect to find info about him, in toy related websites? and there is already info about his ancestry...Adrianzax (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of reliable info on Codreanu from proper scholarly sources. Interviews with virtually anonymous squadristi are of no particular value or interest, do not bring in any reliable info, and should certainly not be used as the basis for removing info based on quality sources. Dahn (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1. That is not unreliable source, it's the Library of Timis County, the "unreliable" sources were erased.

2. Don't make his father bio and ancestry in his article, the article is about Corneliu not about Ion

3. Don't remove actual facts and documents with what Emil Cioran, also an Iron Guard admirer. tought or believed without any evidences. Adrianzax (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1. As you were told before, that is the opinion of a person who was politically involved with Codreanu. It is not a third-party historical study, and in fact it sets itself against a historical study. It claims no proof for the assertion, and should thus be ignored outright. As a side note, the fact that it would be hosted (not published, son) by the Timiş County Library matters naught: not only is that library not especially prestigious or at all scholarly, but the simple presence of a book in a collection does not validate its reliability.

2. A brief mention of his supposed ethnic origins, as discussed in relevant and sources, is indeed relevant to Codreanu Jr. - I should add "to Codreanu Jr. as well".

3. Cioran's statement is clearly introduced as "a speculation", not taken for garanted, and it is cited precisely because Cioran intended to place doubt on Codreanu Jr.'s ethnic origins - a doubt which is relevant for the article. The quotation is validated by its use in a proper source, and not by its utterance by Cioran. Needless to say, there are no "facts and documents" in that book of interviews you cite, just the dubious opinion of a person who challenges willy nilly a statement made by a historian (Francisco Veiga).

Finally:

4. If you continue to remove referenced text and replace it with whitewash, I'll report you to WP:AN/I, for which you're long due. Dahn (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mircea Dimitriu was an Iron Guard member, thus much more politicaly involved with Codreanu then the only admirer Cioran. and Stop making LEGAL THREATS mr. Dahn, this is all I have to say for the moment Adrianzax (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"I'll sue you!" is a legal threat. "I'll report you to the wikipedia admins" is not a legal threat. bogdan (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"I'll report you to the wikipedia admins" is not a legal threat but : "If you continue to remove referenced text and replace it with whitewash, I'll report you to WP:AN/I, for which you're long due" it is Adrianzax (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Adrianzax, it isn't. That policy refers to the real world, not to wikipedia due processes. In fact, let's see what you make of this prominent quote: "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or your friendly local admin." Just so you know. Dahn (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax, you don't seem to understand: the Cioran quote is not relevant because of his involvement, but because it is present in a reliable secondary source. Otherwise: the more involved, the less neutral, and therefore the less reliable. I expect this to be pretty clear. Dahn (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SO now the opinion of a person who was politically involved with Codreanu, doesn't count anymore... sheeesh ..things change pretty fast this days.... Your secondary reliable secondary source is no more reliable then the Library of Timis County which actually gives documents and facts when talking about his ethnicity. What you are doing is called Original Research, observe the word SPECULATION over there. Let's stop this foolish argue and let's try to make better articles in Wiki.. OK? Adrianzax (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax, we quote reliable sources, and WP:OR applies to speculation made by us, not to speculation made by the sources - as long as it is relevant to the article, that kind of speculation is a relevant point of view. As I have shown above and below, that is not by any means the only argument in support of Codreanu's non-Romanian origin, and this questioning has direct and palpable consequences for the article, referring as it does to the man's real or supposed origin. As long as the opinions come from respectable sources (in this case, Cioran cited in a secondary source), and not from random fascists who are interviewed outside of academia, the opinion expressed will be relevant. As we stand, the article indicates his father's Slavic origin as a possibility, not as a fact (although it could well have been one), and his mother's German origin as a fact, since there is no reliable source to contest that, and since even the source you cite sets itself against a reliable source. Dahn (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, here are some relevant quotes from some other professional historians:

• Royal Institute of International Affairs, Enemy Countries, Axis-Controlled Europe, 1945" "codreanu, the founder of the movement, is of Ruthenian origin"
• R. J. Crampton, Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century, 1994, p.113-114: "[Codreanu was] born of a German mother and a Polish-Ukrainian father"
• Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans, 1983, p.203-204: "[Codreanu's] father, who was probably of Ukrainian or Polish national origin, changed his original name of Zelinski to Zelea and then added Codreanu, from the word codru, meaning 'forest'."
• Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, 1996, p.271: "Szalasi, like Codreanu [...] was far from a full-blooded offspring of the group he championed"
• Hugh Seton-Watson, The East European Revolution, 1961, p.206: (drawing a parallel between Codreanu and Bodnăraş no less!) "Both the fascist tough and the communist tough, both the Rumanian super-patriot of the right and the Rumanian super-patriot 'anti-imperialist fighter' of the left, had a Ukrainian father and a German mother."

Then cite that links not the "Speculation" one, and you know that you need links for that statements, isn't it? And again you are citing personal opinions, I'm quoting facts and documents : tatăl lui Corneliu Zelea Codreanu a ajuns să fie numit Ion Zelinski, dar originea sa românească era certificată de un act de botez, în limba română, precum şi de religia ortodoxă, exclusiv românească, în care se făcuse botezul. Mai mult decât atât, ca o confirmare sigură, certificatul de botez al lui Ion Zelinski are şi viza consulatului român din Cernăuţi Adrianzax (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax: you are citing not "facts", but what someone claims are facts. That someone does not only have a political bias (one of a rather sinister nature), but he is not a professional in any kind of scholarly field. Furthermore, he claims that he knows better than a professional historian who included this argument in one of his books, and to whom he is replying directly, as well as indirectly claiming he knows better than all the statements listed above. As for the Cioran quote, for the fifth and final time, it is relevant because it was picked from a secondary source of the uttermost importance. Get it? Dahn (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes i'm citing facts, if it weren't facts it wasn't cited in a secondary source of the uttermost importance like the Library of Timis County Adrianzax (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't prevent you from parroting me, but I can repeat this: the Library is a county institution having no scholarly function or academic reputation - it is basically a collection of books; the Library is not the publisher, but merely the host; the presence of a book in any library is not in itself a guarantee of reliability - since many, and in this case perhaps most books are donated; the source is not secondary, it is primary - it is a guy telling his recollections and claiming that he can back his assertions - for which there is no independent confirmation. Comprende? Dahn (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left out other other authors, such as I. C. Butnaru (The Silent Holocaust: Romania and Its Jews, 1992, p.36, calling Codreanu Sr. "a Ruthenian" and his wife "the descendant of a Protestant family from Munich"), Anatole Shub (An Empire Loses Hope, 1970, p.200: "The Iron Guard's handsome leader, Corneliu Codreanu, was half-Ukrainian") and Ioan Hudiţă (Jurnal politic, 2002, p.219: "Tatăl lui Corneliu, Zelea Codreanu, sa numit Zelinski, ucrainean din nordul Bucovinei"). Even the raving antisemite Douglas Reed states: "Codreanu, son of a Polish father and a German mother" (Disgrace Abounding, 1940, p.394). Dahn (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Hi. Have you perchance seen the damage here? Moving the template was bad enough (I undid most of the changes in the process, as they were too imaginative to be encyclopedic), but notice that one user has changed the names of all articles in the template. I don't really see why he did that, but should one proceed to change the names in the templates for proper highlights (you know, to have a template entry in bold when in the respective article), or do you think we should have the redirects moved back? Consider History of the Jews in Romania, which now contrasts most other articles of the kind, and which has been lost for the "History of the Jews in Europe" template... Dahn (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved everything back as it was. bogdan (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Poza stearsa

Salut. Nu pricep de ce ai sters poza pusa de catre mine in articolul Patriarch Daniel of Romania si anume File:PF Daniel.jpg. Este o poza luata din varianta wikipedia in romana si stiam ca o pot folosi si la wikipedia in engleza. Specificasem sursa si in plus articolul nu are nici o poza. Arthasfleo (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

La Wikipedia în engleză, regulile pentru copyright sunt puţin mai dure decât la Wikipedia în română. La ro.wikipedia este uploadată cu fair-use (adică fără permisiunea autorului fotografiei), dar aici, nu este permisă utilizarea fair-use decât dacă nu se poate realiza un echivalent "free" (adică sub o licenţă GFDL, Creative Commons sau asemănătoare). Patriarhul Daniel este în viaţă şi apare în public în mod regulat, ceea ce înseamnă că o poză a dumnealui poate fi realizată. Vedeţi şi Wikipedia:Image use policy. bogdan (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ok. thx Arthasfleo (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Noooo

You ruined it for me. I was sure that the next addition to this category was going to be Hobana. That would have made the title letters spell "CHIMP". I was looking forward to that, because I never ever saw the letters in any category forming an actual word. Excluding one-letter words, that is. Thanks to Anestin, now it says "ACHIMP" - sure, I can use my imagination to break that word into two, but that is not the same, is it?

Of course, how I came to set myself this goal is probably the real troubling issue here :) Dahn (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, thanks for the laugh. :-) bogdan (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, are there really that few Romanian atheists? I was not able to find anyone else. bogdan (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably not. It's safe to assume that many (most?) of the prominent communists were also atheists, but I personally never did find specific sources attributing this to any of them, and we should no go by assumptions. But something is bound to pop up for at least some of them. There are other notorious atheists, such as Vasile Conta and Titu Maiorescu, but I'm thinking the articles on them should be expanded to at least acceptable proportions to cover whatever else they did before we include references to this aspect (and before we include them in the category). Dahn (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Codreanu

Hi. Please look into the issues I raised here. It seems that two editors (or is it just one?) have added misleading citations, which should count as serious disruption. Dahn (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Romanian user

Oh man, I got played :-D - I really did think he was a user that didn't really know how to use Wikipedia. I spent half an hour writing to him trying to explain things! Ha, thank you for telling me, friend :-) Take care! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples of gaming

Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to): -

1. Wikilawyering

2. Playing policies against each other

3. Relying upon the letter of policy as a defence when breaking the spirit of policy

4. Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper

5. Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply such as verifiability but wilfully ignoring others such as neutrality)

6. Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community

7. False consensus

8. Stonewalling (willfully stalling discussion or preventing it moving forward)

9. 'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach to make it hard to actually prove misconduct)

10. Abuse of process

Which of these do you think I'm guilty of?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For instance, "3. Relying upon the letter of policy as a defence when breaking the spirit of policy". You are allowed to dispute the name of an article, but adding the tag to so many articles is just trolling. bogdan (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

However in this case the letter and the spirit of the policy apply to the very content, which is defined as English Wikipedia. I must admit that I tagged because I trawled and not trolled, and in this case I trawled you. Since you are the one who is so interested in talking, do you agree that the articles I tagged are located in English language Wikipedia?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's naïve to think that diacritics are used in English only by the élite. English is such a mêlée that words like "Führer" kept their diacritics when they were borrowed. bogdan (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you post to the wrong page? I asked if you agree that the articles I tagged are located in English language Wikipedia?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As for you prowess with the keyboard, I can assure you that not one education system in the English speaking world teaches how to spell those words in that way. However, feel free to prove me wrong.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

50,000 articles in the English language press which use the diacritic on "Führer". Is that enough.

I saw your question last time, but I see no point in answering obvious questions. bogdan (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you should know better then that! Google is not a proof for anything. If I asked an obvious question, then the answer must be equally obvious.

Therefore I assume that:

• You agree that the articles I tagged are located in English language Wikipedia?

for the next question:

• Do you agree that English language Wikipedia should use English language alphabet?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 14:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

some troubles

Hi Bogdan (don't you russian (from the name)? ;) uu) first at all i mast say that i'm new in wiki. I'll tryed to make info about AltDesc® software by Gladiators Software© (GS site in english in russian and makes a fault by copying text from one of their page. i can't understand how to make qoutes here from other pages. May i restore this page and remake it? and may you tell me how make quotes? i read about 'ref' and not understand at all.

с наилучшими пожеланиями из россии ;) cp-1251 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna S (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not a place for advertising a product. Yes, it has articles about some products, but only those deemed notable and written in a neutral and encyclopedic way. Please see: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). bogdan (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Decebal

Sal, de ce ai modif pagina cu decebal, reason, nonsens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumaru (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pentru că Wikipedia nu este un loc unde să expui genul acesta de teorii, scrise de cineva pe un site personal geocities. Este nevoie de o sursă de încredere, de exemplu, de un articol publicat într-un jurnal academic, sau o carte publicată la o editură bună. Dacă nu ar fi aşa, atunci şi eu aş putea să inventez o prostioară de genul "Decebal" = "ceai de mentă" în limba dacă, s-o scriu în situl meu mai întâi şi apoi să o adaug în articol. bogdan (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Romance Pannonian language deletion

Sincerely I don't understand why you make always "disappear" the article about Romance Pannonian language. I translated it from a Blog that had copied the first edition (that went under a discussion). In that discussion most wikiusers agreed to maintain the article, but was strangely erased after the intervention of a banned vandal (who wanted the elimination of the article). It is true that there are no clear evidences of the existence , but there are even NO clear evidences of the non existence of the extinct language. In other similar cases the article has remained , even if with clear commentaries about the lack of evidences (e.g.:like in the neolatin language in North Africa). It is strange all this, very strange. Anyway, here it is the copy of the talkpage related to the first discussion:

...."......As a proof of the nationalistic pressure that has "erased" the article about the Romance Pannonian language, I want to copy the following final posts on the related talkpage:

CAN ANYONE CITE ONE SINGLE WRITTEN DOCUMENT OF THAT LANGUAGE?

Is there any single word found in a written document or on an archeological fund which proves that Latin language was spoken in Pannonia after the fall of the Roman Empire? Otherwise this whole article is only a theory and this should be explained at the beginning. --Hunadam 05:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Read again:According to the french historian André Du Nay (in his book The Origins of the Rumanians -- The early history of the Rumanian language) "...in the north (of the Balkan peninsula) a Roman population still lived in the former province of Pannonia at least in the sixth century and the question whether the dialect spoken there belonged to east latin or western latin has been discussed by scholars like Tagliavini (in his Le origini delle lingue neolatine) without a definite conclusion..." In his opinion there was a romance dialect spoken around the Lake Balaton during the times of the Plague of Justinian, in the year 541. Another source is the vatican sponsored website "www.orbilat.com" and articles (about the research done by Schulze-Dörlamm in 1984 on the 6000 tombs in the Keszthely area) appeared on JSTOR. Why to cancel all these evidences? And the article about it? All this smells of Hungarian nationalism to me....Tom R.W.

HUNGARIAN NATIONALISM

I STRONGLY BELIEVE that the Hungarian nationalism has forced the redirect of the article to "Pannonia", as I have written above to Hunadam. Wikipedia should not be influenced in this way....I believe we all have lost useful and interesting information -with precise and serious references from JSTOR- about a language (the Romance Pannonian) that developed in the lake Balaton area and that was "cut and destroyed" in the beginning by the Hungarian barbars. By the way: not one single evidence has been given AGAINST the evidences of the existence of the Romance Pannonian language! Why the decision against the article is based on elementary and not academical opinions? Where is it the proof that the Romance Pannonian language did not exist? In the doubt, the article should have remained (may be with some commentaries against the existence of this romance language by some wikipedians with contrary opinions). There are many other articles that can be erased, if we apply the same logic! Tom R.W.

Actually, what caused it to be redirected were the arguments given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance Pannonian language. And Wikipedia doesn't run on negative proof fallacies. Grandmasterka 05:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The redirect was done because of arguments not based on academical opinions from Hungarian wikipedians (like Hunadam) and this is absolutely not fair. Their superficial opinions and their lack of evidences against what is written in the article are the real negative proof fallacies! I want to repeat:Where is it the proof that the Romance Pannonian language did not exist? In the doubt, the article should have remained (may be with some commentaries against the existence of this romance language by some wikipedians with contrary opinions). I hope the authors of the article will request a revision of the redirect (WP:DRV) .Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.202.139 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if the authors personally don't want it, I believe we can request a WP:DRV because the article has been erased on arguments not based on academical opinions (but only on contrary POV, mainly from Hungarian wikipedians), and there it is a reasonable doubt of "suspicion" of nationalism in the decision. Tom

P.S.: I even want to pinpoint that one of the "delete" requests in the discussion came from User:Sambure, a banned sockpuppet. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.203.101 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia has been damaged -even if minimally- by the way this article has been "erased" by some admins. Tom

Very strange admin behavior and rude answer

The following are excerpts taken from the talkpage of Sandstein, the admin who has "erased" the article of Romance Pannonian language in agreement with admin Bogdangiusca:

HUNGARIAN NATIONALISM

I STRONGLY BELIEVE that the Hungarian nationalism has forced the redirect of the article "Romance Pannonian language" to "Pannonia". Wikipedia should not be influenced in this way....I believe we all have lost useful and interesting information -with precise and serious references from JSTOR- about a language (the Romance Pannonian) that developed in the lake Balaton area and that was "cut and destroyed" in the beginning by the Hungarian barbars. By the way: not one single evidence has been given AGAINST the evidences of the existence of the Romance Pannonian language! Why the decision against the article is based on elementary and not academical opinions? Where is it the proof that the Romance Pannonian language did not exist? In the doubt, the article should have remained (may be with some commentaries against the existence of this romance language by some wikipedians with contrary opinions). There are many other articles that can be erased, if we apply the same logic! Tom R.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.200.129 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Hungarian and do not care about anyone's nationalism. The article was redirected according to the outcome of the AfD discussion. if you think this redirection was in error, see WP:DRV. Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The redirect was done because of arguments not based on academical opinions from Hungarian wikipedians (like Hunadam) and this is absolutely not fair. Their superficial opinions and their lack of evidences against what is written in the article are real negative proof fallacies! I want to repeat:Where is it the proof that the Romance Pannonian language did not exist? In the doubt, the article should have remained (may be with some commentaries against the existence of this romance language by some wikipedians with contrary opinions). I hope the authors of the article will request a revision of the redirect (WP:DRV) .Tom

I believe we can request a WP:DRV because the article has been erased on arguments not based on academical opinions (but only on contrary POV, mainly from Hungarian wikipedians), and there it is a reasonable doubt of "suspicion" of nationalism in the decision. Furthermore, I even want to pinpoint that one of the "delete" requests in the RfD discussion came from User:Sambure, a banned sockpuppet. Tom R.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.204.127 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion of the article "Romance Pannonian Language". I believe Tom is right. There were 3 wikipedians who voted Delete (and one was a banned sockpuppet, as correctly notes Tom), while 2 wikipedians voted Maintain the article. I was going to vote in favor of maintainig the article, but suddenly I saw it deleted. Probably with my vote in this case the article should have not been deleted, but only modified. Anyway, you wrote that <Feel free to change the redirect target or merge the content from the history somewhere>, but how? How can I read again the content and merge something somewhere? The content has disappeared. Now I can read only about "Pannonia".Thanks.--Cherso (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote; the closing admin takes the arguments into account. In this case, the problem was that the article Romance Pannonian language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was not really about the (supposed) language itself, but about the history of the region, which content probably belongs elsewhere. Is there any proof of banned users participating in the AfD? Also, you can't see the history because Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs) deleted it. Please ask him to restore it if you want to merge the content from the history. Sandstein (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This deletion of Romance Pannonian language is very strange. Above you ask if "there is any proof of banned users participating in the AfD", after I wrote you that user:Sambure is a banned sockpuppet......of course, as you certainly know looking at [1]! Then Cherso ask for the content that has disappeared and you (an admin) don't know how to retrieve it and so you send the poor Cherso to the boss of the Romanian Wikipedia, Bogdangiusca, for information about. Strange, very strange....May be the smell of nationalism that I have complained in my former edit comes not only from Hungary.....Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.23.98 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This attitude will not help you get the article undeleted. Go bother someone else. Sandstein (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WOW. What a rude answer. All this scares away people from participating to Wikipedia: no wonder that the author of the article is no more writing on Wikipedia since the deletion of "Romance Pannonian language".....--Cherso 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe we are dealing here with a clear lack of justice! Tom ..........."............

Sincerely, --Pannonicus (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pannonicus, do we really know anything about that Pannonian Romance language? The article you created didn't talk about the actual language. We just know that there were Romans living in Pannonia. We can't even tell that their language was different in any way from the Vulgar Latin spoken in Italy.

What was not off-topic, was mostly made up of speculations, most of them unsourced. You claimed it's "related to the old Illyrian". Who says that? You know, it can't be both related to Illyrian and a Romance language.

For instance, you claim that:

The Romance Pannonian language probably contributed to the creation of the 300 basic words of the "Latin substratum" of the Balkan Romance languages, according to Romanian linguist Alexandru Rossetti (in his Istoria limbii române).

That's a misunderstanding of what the substratum really is. You should really read what Rossetti actually says in that book. Those words are presumed to be inherited from a non-Latin language (assumed to be related to Albanian) as they are not related to anything in Latin. Pannonian Romance language is, obviously, a Romance language.

Also, your orbilat source says "In the north, a Roman population probably still lived in the former province of Pannonia" It doesn't even say it existed for sure and it certainly doesn't talk about how the language was. bogdan (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Bogdangiusca, but I disagree with you. I have been an avid reader of your many posts in Wikipedia in the last years and I have always agreed with your points of view. But this time - even if I doubt my 5 points below can be useful to revert your "delete article" decision (but I hope your "high level" of intelligence and personality can do it) - I want to explains the following (in defense of the article that I have partially translated from the Blog at brunodam.blog.kataweb.it/2008/01/24/romance-pannonian-language/):

• 1) In the article there it is written: "..Some scholars argue that the Romance Pannonian lacks clear evidences of existence, because no writings of this language has been found until now. But, according to Sós Árthur in his book "Cemeteries of the Early Middle Ages (6 th-9 th c.)" at Pókaszepetkin, in some of the 6000 tombs of the Keszthely culture there are words in vernacular Latin that seems related to the Romance Pannonian language..." The scholar Sós Árthur should be read and taken in consideration, don't you agree?
• 2) The word "Keszthely" is a living proof of this language. In the article there it is written:"...the same Keszthely name (pronounced in Hungarian “Kestei”) is similar to the istrian-venecian “castei”, that means “castle”, and is probably an original word of the Romance Pannonian language, according to the Hungarian linguist Julius Pokornyin (in Indogermanisches Etymologisches Worterbuch)..." Even in this case the scholar Julius Pokornyin should be read and taken in consideration....
• 3) In an interesting article about the history of Keszthely [1] we can read that in 456 "...the Ostrogoths occupied Western Transdanubia. The Fenékpuszta fortress (near Keszthely) was set on fire, the majority of the inhabitants died. The Goths returned a couple of months later and they made the rest of the romanised population rebuild the fortress..." So here we have a clear reference that there was a "romanised population": note that it was not a "roman" population speaking Latin and -for Orbis latinus- it was a "romanized" population! This population must have had its own language and that language was starting to evolve (like happened in Italy, France, Spain etc..) from Latin into a neolatin language. Furthermore can be read that "...in 568 in return for an alliance (with the Avars), the Longobards emptied Transdanubia and went down to Italy. It was during the Avar Empire that for the first time in the history of the Carpathian Basin, Keszthely and the surroundings were under the same authority. Keszthely and the surroundings were not occupied so the original inhabitants lived on undisturbed. They paid food and artisan goods for peace...." So, these romanized population were still there in 568 and later: the common sense will indicate to all of us that their language -after nearly two centuries- had evolved in a neolatin language, because "undirsturbed" and without influences from the Avars and Goths.
• 4) Orbis latinus (as can be read here at [2]) says that "..the question whether the dialect spoken there belonged to East Latin or to the Occidental dialects has been discussed without a definite conclusion..." That means that there are scholars discussing about the dialect and someone of them agrees with the existence! Why they should discuss, dear Bogdangiusca, if there it is no dialect?
• 5) Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia that gets every "no-nonsense" opinion and data, so why should not include an article about a neolatin language that has scholars discussing about? As wrote Tom

"...In the doubt, the article should have remained (may be with some commentaries against the existence of this romance language by some wikipedians with contrary opinions)...."

Sincerely. --Pannonicus (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe what you say is nonsense. All you know about that language is one word and that word is mistakingly compared with other Romance languages. Keszthely is pronounced Kestei in Modern Hungarian, but it was pronounced differently in old Hungarian (ly was pronounced /ʎ/ rather than /ei/, the same as in the Italian sound "gli") and it was probably borrowed from medieval Latin, like hundreds of other Hungarian words, like "templom" (church).

If you disagree with me, you can always try to undelete your article at Wikipedia:Deletion review. bogdan (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Catavencu international.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Catavencu international.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

congratulations for nice job done

Salut, Imi pare foarte bine ca ai creat Template:History of Moldova si Bessarabia in the Russian Empire. Eu am strans de ceva vreme cate ceva materiale pe temele acestea, dar este foarte mult de lucru. Poate ar merita sa organizam un pic lucrurile, sa discutam cam ce articole lipsesc si ar trebui create, unde punem diverse informatii. Putem discuta fie aici, fie prin email, cum ti-e mai usor. Mersi frumos, :Dc76\^talk 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mulţumesc. Păi, am şi eu ceva materiale: cărţile lui Ion Nistor (Istoria Basarabiei, de hârtie) şi Charles King (The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture, ) şi alte câteva care ar putea fi folosite. bogdan (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

O am si eu pe prima. Mai am Pantelimon Halipa, Anatolie Moraru, Testament pentru urmaşi, München, 1967, reprint Hyperion, Chişinău, 1991 si Mihail Adauge, Alexandru Furtună, Basarabia şi basarabenii, Chişinău, Editura Uniunii Scriitorilor din Moldova, 1991, care este o colectie foarte buna de citate din diverse surse, pentru perioada 1812-1991. Se gaseste online Charles Upson Clark, Bessarabia: Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea, New York, 1927. Pentru perioada sovietica exista cateva pagini si in Raportul Comisiei Prezidenţiale pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din România: Raport Final (Raportul Tismaneanu). Mai pot gasi si altele. Pe pagina mea aici pe WP la sectiunea History, am cateva linkuri rosii, ceea ce inseamna ca as vrea sa creez aceste articole. Poate facem o lista de articole pe tema History of Moldova, evidentiem 10-20 din ele care sa fie de baza, iar celelalte sa fie sub-articole referite din cele 10-20. Situatia de acum mi se pare destul de dezorganizata. Si evident, trebuie sa le punem in categoriile respective (History of Moldova, History of Bessarabia, History of Moldavia, History of Romania, combinatii?) In orice caz, daca te gandesti sa fii activ in aceasta directie, te voi urma cu cea mai mare placere. Daca ai careva sugestii privind prioritatile (cu ce sa ne ocupam in primul rand), eu sunt foarte reciptibil. In paralel vreau sa mai fac un lucru care nu are legatura cu asta: sa organizez localitatile din Moldova. Deci, timpul meu pe WP in viitorul apropiat va fi impartit intre aceste 2 "tasks". :Dc76\^talk 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Scuzati-ma ca intervin, dar la ce bun ar fi un articol de "istoria Basarabiei", daca exista deja unul despre Basarabia (care oricum e destinat sa fie 80-90% istorie), unul despre Basrabia in Imp. Rus, unul despre istoria Rep. Moldova, unul despre Moldova (Moldavia), cateva (foarte proaste) despre istoria Romaniei in nustiuce epoca, unul despre RASSM si unul despre RSSM, unul despre ocupatia sovietica, unul despre Sfatul Tarii, unul despre Unire, unul depre Moldovenism, si unul despre Romania Mare? Cu ce ar ajuta pe utilizator un articol care sa repete acelasi continut? Pe bune, Dc76, incearca sa ai o viziune de ansamblu asupra felului in care se leaga articolele si organizarii continutului pentru cititor. Vezi si WP:CFORK. Dahn (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nu-i nevoie sa te scuzi, interventia ta este foarte utila. (daca te/Va deranjeaza "tu", nu ma doare deloc sa trec la "D-ra"; aleg "tu" findca 2 litere se tiparesc mai repede, atata tot) Exact din cauza ca exista suprapuneri si nu m-am apucat de lucru. Si exact din aceeasi cauza l-am contactat azi pe Bogdan. Motivele mele pentru a exista articole separate Basarabia si Istoria Basarabiei le-am prezentat lui TSO1D si lui Illythr asta toamna in Talk:Bessarabia. Ideea de baza: Bessarabia ar trebui sa fie despre geografie, populatie, cetati, organizare, oameni, functii si cine le-au ocupat, toate aspectele. History of Bessarabia ar trebui sa fie doar despre istorie, si de aceea am zis ca asta inseamna in primul rand 1812-1940, sau aproape exclusiv aceasta perioada. Intre timp, Bogdan a creat acest articol Bessarabia in the Russian Empire, care este exact ce am vrut sa fie History of Bessarabia 1812-1917. (Evident sa mai elaboram, sunt mult mai multe de spus.) Lista ta, Dahn, este cam ce am eu in vedere cand am zis 10-20 (mai putin Moldovenism). Anume pentru a-mi face o viziune de ansamblu, care sa coincida in mare cu viziunea de ansamblu a altor editori, anume pentru asta l-am contactat pe Bogdan. Tu ai spus exact lucrurilor pe nume: eu exact asta incerc sa fac.:Dc76\^talk 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lista de articole existente/necesare

Articole "de baza": History of Moldova (adica un overview general pre-1991 si detalat pentru dupa 1991, istoria statului, natural), History of Moldavia (adica doar istoria; pe perioada 1359-1859), Bessarabia in the Russian Empire (adica 1812-1917), Sfatul Tarii (1917-1918), Moldavian Democratic Republic (ditto), Union of Bessarabia with Romania (1918-1940), Greater Romania (1918-1940, apropo nu ar trebui sa fie Great fara er),

În engleză, de obicei se foloseşte "Greater". Vezi Greater Serbia, Greater Albania, Greater Italy, etc. bogdan (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (apropo, parerea mea, "northern" cu "n" mic; 1940-1991, dar cu trimiteri la Moldavian SSR pentru partea economica si organizatia RSSM), Moldavian SSR (1940-41, 1944-1991, dar fara a repeta llucrurile de la Soviet occupation), Deportation of Romanians in the Soviet Union (1940-1956, cu refeinte despre s-au intors/ramas acolo, chiar daca mai tarzii).

Lipsesc: Independence of Moldova (1988-1992), Romanians of Transnistria and southern Ukraine (sau poate History of...),

Dar există History of the Romanians in Ukraine. bogdan (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Moldavia (titlul lui Bogdan) / History of Bessarabia prior to 1812 (titlul meu) / sau gasim un titlul mai bun (pentru istoria specific a regiunii inainte de 1812, adica despre Dacii liberi din aceasta regiune, nu despre toti dacii in general, despre orasele si castrele romane din regiune, despre perioada medievala timpurie in regiune, nu si din Transilvania, pentru lucruri specifice Basarabiei in principatul Moldovei, cum e la Nistor, lucruri prea marunte pentru Principatul Moldovei in general), Romanians in the armies of other countries (titlu f.f. provizoriu; aici as vrea sa spun despre participarile din razboiaele I si II mondial (in armata austriaca, rusa, sovietica), razboiul ruso-japonex, razboiul din afganistan, etc.)

Articole despre geografie/politica dar care au a legaturi cu istoria: Moldova, Bessarabia, Budjak, Chernivtsi oblast, Bukovina, Moldavia (aici ar trebui sa fie doar date despre organizare, geografie, dregatorii, domnitori, nu si istorie), Moldavian ASSR

Articole "minore": Moldovenism (fiindca este o teorie care s-ar putea sa existe 1000 de ani, nu o perioada historica) :Dc76\^talk 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with some articles related to Moldova

I saw you noticed these changes in the recent days. What do you think of this? :Dc76\^talk 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are notified of a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alert

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 01:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan

Hi again. I made a move here, because I think it is best to have all the info in one place - the office (Metropolitan) is also the institution (Metropolis - to which I incidentally prefer "Metropolitan bishopric") and the predecessors (List of). My main reason was to have the various titles on various pages pointing to one page, and this seemed like the best choice for filling all those redlinks in one go.

We should consider this in detail: while personally I think that "List of" creates inconveniences in the long run (and am therefore of the opinion that List of Patriarchs of All Romania should be moved [back] to a similar title), I don't know if the best way is to have these articles sorted as/centered on institutions (metropolis/metropolitan bishopric) or offices (metropolitan). Looking over the Catholic-themed articles, it would seem like the latter is used (as in Archbishop of Paris), though I admit i have not looked into it to much. I could have either way, but we should have it some way (preferably a single way). Dahn (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved. bogdan (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Gavril Bănulescu-Bodoni

On 1 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gavril Bănulescu-Bodoni, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thocomerius

Djuvara clearly states that Thocomerius is Negru Voda, so do you have a source which contradicts this? --Eurocopter (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Eurocopter, Djuvara's is a theory, a quite recent one and somewhat controversial (it has been disputed after it was published - which, if memory serves me, was last year). This is first of all a matter of WP:UNDUE - one cannot decide on an issue by citing the views of just one author, no matter how authoritative that author is; one can and should attribute it to that author. It is also a good thing if editors distinguish between fact and opinion: in this matter, facts are that there exist mention of both rulers, both of which are open to interpretation; opinion is one of those interpretations. The historiographic tradition in Romania (right or wrong as it too may be), tends to do argue that Radu Negru/Negru Vodă was one of these four, outlined here in no particular order: some Romanian chieftain who fled the clampdown on Orthodoxy in Transylvania (hence the "descălecat"); the product of pure late medieval fiction, based on Basarab or by Basarab and some of his successors; an echo of the Cuman expeditions, of which the most elaborate version is probably the account in Djuvara; in Xenopol (and probably others) the person who led the Romanians out of the mountains at the end of the Migration Age. I for one consider Djuvara's version a fresh and interesting take, and, from what I read of it (I haven't read it yet), it is a good antidote to the nationalist cliche that the story of Radu has traditionally been. Yes, this view deserves ample exposure in the article(s), but it should be presented as a possibility voiced by one researcher, not as the pure and simple fact. Especially since things which that long ago and in that obscure a political context are unlikely to yield any absolute truth at the moment. My two cents. Dahn (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, did you read the book? --Eurocopter (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think I already told you I did not. But what I explain above is a general guideline. We can say "it is so" just because one reliable historian in a hundred reliable historians to have dealt with the subject says it is so. Dahn (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you'd read the book you'll see that before Djuvara reaches this conclusion, he presents a list of facts demonstrated by other historians/veritable historical documents, such as Stefan Andreescu, Serban Papacostea, P.P. Panaitescu, Sergiu Iosipescu, Iorga, Radu Popescu, etc. After all this list of verified historian facts was commented by Djuvara, he reached a quite logical conclusion in my opinion, that we should put an equal sign between Thocomerius and Negru Voda. So I repeat, it's a conclusion reached by a reliable historian, based on verified facts of at least 10 other realiable historians. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Djuvara himself says (page 96) that "unfortunately", many contemporary authors think that Negru Vodă and Basarab are the same person and he brings argument against this theory. While you might consider Djuvara's arguments as being convincing, it is not the only theory. bogdan (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To Eurocopter: Let me ask you this: do all historians he cites reach the same conclusion as he? Furthermore, as we stand, i can give you at least one historian who reaches the conclusion that Negru Vodă was a combination of Basarab and Radu II (Ştefan Ştefănescu, Istoria medie a României, Vol. I, 1991, p.129). On Xenopol's aforementioned views, see Lucian Boia, Istorie şi mit, 1997, p.175. Also in Boia: Dimitrie Onciul rejected that the story may have any element of truth, while Gheorghe Brătianu sees in him a southern Transylvanian leader (p.207). I have actually read all those points of view from the original, but I don't have them around (except for Xenopol, but I'm just to lazy to give you his exact account.)

Sure one would expect a point of view like that Djuvara's to be fully documented. But it would still be a point of view, it would have to be attributed, and no definite conclusion should be drawn on the basis of it. Dahn (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but Djuvara's conclusion seems by far the best documented one and until a better one comes out, we should consider it accordingly. If we continue with other wrong theories, we might come in a situation similar to "Battle of Posada" - erroneusely called "of Posada" by Iorga (wrong name being still in use nowadays). --Eurocopter (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Eurocopter, but that is not true. First of all, the other opinions are just as documented. Now, if by "documented" you mean "rely on as much evidence", I will say several things: as long as reliable sources do not reach the same conclusion, all the views should be listed, no matter whom I or you or consider the best documented among them. Even if such historians are in apparent error by idunnowhat criterion, it is not the job of editors to define - we simply record the views as they are described in outside sources of equal reliability (and, yes, I agree that historians like Iorga are responsible for a lot of half-truths in historiography, but that is not a matter for the articles). Furthermore, leaving aside that "best documented" is a subjective assessment, and only as a general principle: some of the most absurd theories in history have also produced a lot of evidence to support them - on principle, it is not number that is required, it is quality. It also often means that the newest theory will present a larger sum of pieces of evidence than its more established predecessors - the reason, I believe, is self-evident. If "documented" means "best attested in this conversation", the answer is still no. I gave you one book which traces part of the whole debate from a purely historiographic perspective, and yet says nothing about a theory like Djuvara's. By citing it, in effect, I gave you a glimpse into more than 200 years of discussion on this and related subjects - just like brandy is the product of several wines, all of a certain age. So, again, by all means: add from Djuvara, attribute his opinions, give them a prominent place in the text, but don't let any version of the story (his just as any other's) take precedence. Dahn (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, as I read Djuvara's book, all his affirmations seemed quite well documented, including this one. You might also change your opinion if you read the book. For me it seems unlogical to keep two articles on the same person. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Eurocopter, it doesn't matter. Whether I read his book or didn't, it is quite clear that it is a theory, and should be treated as such. Dahn (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Without attempting to take sides here, let me just point out that 20th century Romanian history leaves many unanswered questions. What's the full story of 1989-90? Are we to believe the official explanations for the deaths of Chivu Stoica, Virgil Trofin, Goga, Titulescu? Who really was Horia Sima, and how did he get to be head of the Iron Guard? Etc. So if something that happened 20 years ago, documented by the full range of modern technology, remains shrouded in mystery, clearly a figure who lived centuries ago, and about whom far fewer and more ambiguous documents survive, might be subject to even more interpretation. Our job is to present, with due respect to the more reliable interpreters, the views of various historians on the matter and let readers decide, not impose one sole variant on them. Biruitorul (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Atenţionare 2008 Paris-Nice

Te rog să ai în vedere următorul aspect: Nu te mai băga tu unde nu îţi fierbe oala. Vezi-ţi băiete de viaţa ta...nu ai şi tu o prietenă...scoate-o în oraş, la o pizza :> Ce zici ? Sună bine nu...decât să stai să ştergi tu imaginile, chiar şi acelea fără licenţă...Măcar puneai şi alta în loc...una legală :P ooo!!!... cred că eşti foarte mândru de acţiunile tale...;) Sper să nu te superi pe mine, şi pe intervenţia mea nefondată...Cu stimă şi respect ...Eugen A.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simion Eugen-Andrei, Bucharest, Romania (talk • contribs) 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)