User talk:Biruitorul

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3

A star for you

You deserve this to balance out Anonimu and Anittas. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. By the way, did you see this? Bwahahahahahaaaaa! ;-) K. Lásztocska^talk 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay?

Yay? :) AdrianTM (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm preparing the champagne... just in case, if not, at least I can get drunk :D AdrianTM (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsinkable...nuclear...rowboats. Jeez. Just think, they'll still be talking about us centuries from now! Incidentally, do check out the link KIDB just posted to my page--the video is in English and it's hilarious...sad, but hilarious. K. Lásztocska^talk 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what does "cinstire eroilor" mean? K. Lásztocska^talk 17:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

something along the lines of "honor/praise the heroes" -- AdrianTM 17:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL at the deliberate ambiguity, but your main antagonist is gone now, so I'm afraid all you'll get is a few blank stares. But hold on, so you avoided making a pro-Legionnaire statement by issuing an outright provocation to the Transylvanian Hungarians?? Shame on you, you ultranationalist Székely-kicker! ;-) K. Lásztocska^talk 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But blue?! Doesn't that say "Lăncieri"? :D Dahn 01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: better dead than... but then there's Bluze Albastre ;) Not even I know where this came from... Dahn 03:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you are not accused of being philofascist, you are accused of being a fascist canibal... (sorry, but I got an image of a painted canibal wearing a German helmet) :D AdrianTM 03:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah but, you see, he admits to the charge of being a cannibal. It was bound to pop up sooner or later. :D Dahn 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Their mighty ships once again raised from their watery graves, our Intrepid Heroes of the good ships Dacia and Hungaria looked cautiously over the newly-calm waters, not daring yet to fully believe...but yes, it was true...could it be? The storm was over, the sea was peaceful, their latest battle had run its course. Hoisting their flags high to flutter cheerfully in the cool breeze, the various captains and admirals set sail for the mainland, there to beat their swords into plowshares and spend their time building great monuments in words to Romanian literature, Hungarian music, and various characters on all sides of the political spectrum. At last, all was well."

Now, THAT'S how we should have ended it. (Dahn, did you see what odd path I've taken the Balaton tale down?) Incidentally, Biru, I got your message and have replied on the forum. :) :) :) K. Lásztocska^talk 05:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you see, what I do is I enter the forum page, open the newest posts page, click on "Edit", "Find in this page", type "Dahn". I then proceed to read the five words before the highlight and the five words after. What I couldn't help notice is that there was no highlight for quite a while now, ahem.

No, but really now: it's truly hilarious. The Arpads touch... I guffawed. But, hey, forget Funar: there's a new guy in town who, although he scored miserably at the Euro elections, knocked out Vadim and won more than Tokes (he's the new yardstick when it comes to ground-level agitation). Plus, he should add more color than the bland monomaniacal Funar. Here's the man, here's the dream. Enjoy. Dahn 06:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What happened, have all the people who had a trace of common sense left Romania? Who can vote for such a guy? -- AdrianTM 06:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask Biru ;). But no, hey, I'm mean. Becali didn't get that much - did he, after all, gain that one seat they were still hoping for? On the other hand, I came to admit myself that Becali is at least one class over Vadim: I mean, he is really simple, but, unlike Vadim, he is not of the feces family. Especially when it comes to insignificant offices such as MEP, I prefer Becali. Dahn 06:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

From the little I saw of him, he looks like a reasonably good stand-up comedian. Speaking of which, how come there is no one from Romania in Category:Stand-up comedians by country? How about Birlic, or Constantin Tănase — would they qualify for Category:Romanian stand-up comedians, if such a cat were to exist? Anyone alive that could go in such a cat (besides jeejee, that is)? Turgidson 07:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fans made sure (I cringe...). Btw, we should have articles on Divertis and its members at some point. I did my share - does he qualify? Dahn 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Backing up a bit: good Lord. Dahn, you're right, I completely left you out of the most recent chapter. *hangs head in shame and slinks off into a corner.* Glad you liked the Árpád bit though: it's a recent recurring daydream of mine, as in recent months I've become quite fascinated with early Hungarian history and mythology--the thought that there might still be an (illegitimate, most likely) Árpád line out in the backwoods somewhere, and also an excuse to bring the story of Prince Csaba into the mix. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Franklin Place, 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.

--Royalbroil 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

«Panoramic» image

It was not a personal Photo, just my mistake (I remembered I had one but it was b/w and not that detailed). This is a scannend image (can't remember where from though), not mine. Fair use. --Alex:Dan (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

what is this comment supposed to mean?

"more Nergaal specials coming our way" Nergaal (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is more important to have a stub article that can appear in the queue of a search, than to wait until someone has the energy to write something decent. This means that there is an interest in having those articles. Also, once an article is created, there will be some interested users in de-stubing them, or at least in making them 'acceptable' (as you just proved). Please keep in mind that those many of your contributions have been well below our standards are only a part of way more many articles I create and expand. Nergaal (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC

Roger Federer records page

Not sure why you feel this should be deleted. It is very notable the records that he is breaking and it takes a considerable amount of time to compile the records together in one place, which is why the article is valid. If your complaint is the sources, then you should compel the authors to source each one of the records.

Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Juan Carlos

I think the section you removed should be retained although perhaps not the top section of it above Robert of Worms (which might be made up.) But the section below Robert of Worms is undeniably accurate and I think it adds to the article to see how the man's ancestry can be traced back to the beginnings of his royal house, the house of Robert - this line also happens to be one of the longest in the world, which is cause for mention.

If you disagree, can I suggest a move to House of Bourbon? There, it would show the ancestral beginnings of that house, which would definitely be useful.

Mark J (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. The same proposal appears to have been accepted by other royal houses, such as House of Tudor and House of Stuart. Cheers Mark J (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ABP

Thanks, and yes, it looks quite reasonable. In fact, I don't know why they didn't simply add a "spouse" section in the infobox to begin with. Fascinating character, wouldn't you say? Dahn (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On Eliade: fire at your own will - I'm sure they can find a place in the article, and we could expand on them from some stuff I posted for safekeeping on the talk page there. The word I'm thinking of when it comes to the other articles you mention is "spam" - better the redlinks (or, well, nothing).

In the meantime, I tickled the dragon on rowiki, and it seems that the controversy there revolves around a small cluster of people who actually want to promote extremist and antisemitic sites (or are even involved in promoting those sites). They write their own policies, act as if the project belongs to them, and have collectively flame warred me and other users with all sorts of attacks (some coming from an admin, who currently proposes demoting admins who do not agree with him). I want to take this further, because we are clearly talking about abuse, but just how much time and energy would this require? Little wonder that project has gone to hell. I'm as jaded as back in the Icarian days. Dahn (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. As we stand, this is me and others praying to the Virgin (if you have the energy to read through it, you'll see what aspects this has come to involve, and who the usual suspects are - perhaps you could look through the recent history of the page, as you'll perhaps agree with me that two involved parties double as the prosecutor and the judge). Meta looks like a good next step, but one would have to start from scratch and deal with all the noise, threats and accusations yet again. This early assessment, alas, looks dead on for now. Dahn (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh! How could we get our hands on a PD photo of this? Dahn (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Their website says we can't. You can take photos if one pays 50 lei, but one can't use them for anything other than personal purposes. That's what they claim, but Paciurea died more than 70 years ago, so his sculpture is PD by now. bogdan (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember brushing into that absurd regulation when I noticed how one user was, shall we say, braving it (which, if you were to ask me, was a merit - just what legislation does that state museum think it is operating under?). Dahn (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they claim a "taxă de fotografiere profesionişti: 2000 lei / oră" which is absurdly high. The Louvre allows anyone to take photographs for free.

BTW, I visited that museum last week and I was reprimated for doing something which a guard considered "obscene". (how do you dare kissing her? this is a museum!) :-) bogdan (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What the guard did would only make sense if "her" was a painting or a sculpture. :) Dahn (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they have no statue of Galatea, but they do have a copy of Rodin's The Kiss. :-) bogdan (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of ABP, you did a terrific job with that article! bogdan (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It's all part of my hidden and subversive agenda. :D Dahn (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew it! You're part of the Great World Conspiracy! BTW, next time you meet your Grey extra-terrestrial overlords, can you please take a picture of them? The article severely lacks a good photo. :P bogdan (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you: you see, I don't work for those guys. I'm with these guys. :) Dahn (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

You are the nominator of a WP:FL that was promoted in the last month. I am inviting you to participate in nominations and voting in a List of the Day experiment I am conducting at WP:LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Cony

Hello Biruitorul. Thank you for your contributions to the article Samuel Cony. I wish you all the best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cristero War - Mexican Revolution

It seems that you insist that the Cristero War had its roots on the Mexican Revolution. Could you please give some evidence to this?

Edsonland (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I agree that the Cristero War might have had its roots on the policies that where implemented on the post-revolutionary period. It just however doesn't seem to me that it was actually a consequence of the revolution happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsonland (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Anonimu is banned from editing Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for a period of one year, to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ratgeb

Hi, Thanks for your edits on the Jerg Ratgeb article. I agree with removing the flag icon (you should do the same on Albrecht Dürer), although I think removing the reference to Germany as his birthplace (as in Schwäbisch Gmünd, Holy Roman Empire) goes a bit too far. athinaios (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I think it was ok either way. I think if one was very strict, one would have to say that it was already Germany then (after all, the full name of the Holy Roman Empire implies that strongly; the point appears to me that there was no unified German state then, not that there was no Germany), so that the über-correct version would be "Holy Roman Empire, now Federal Republic of Germany". And that would look awful. So let's leave it the way it is, or if you prefer, even the previous way you put it. Anyone who really want to know will presumably find out one way or the other. athinaios (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Socialist realism in Romania

Please excuse me again: I wanted to answer sooner, but, as you might have seen, I had quite the delurge to deal with (though it seems that, at last, more users are becoming aware of the problems). And thank you for the kind words of support on the WP:RS noticeboard.

Your article is a great start, but we may have to restructure it in oder to fit the references. As we stand, in addition to the three sources (VT, AC, LB) and, possibly, Victor Frunză, have handy two books by Cernat: one which is just a great read for this and other subjects, is incidentally already mentioned in the bibliography section; the other is the one I quoted in ABP, where one finds an interesting foray into the birth of socialist realism inside the Romanian avant-garde (with Roll, Bogza, Paraschivescu and some other guys). There should indeed be sources that link NC's style not just to Stalinism, but also to socialist realism, but I admit I haven't looked into them yet - it'll be one of my priorities when I do. Presumably, they could also be used to clarify what is perceived as "original" (Păunescu's introduction of distorted "flower power" litanies, Vadim's nationalism, the Palace of Parliament's baroque flowering etc.). I'm also with you on the issue of de-Stalinization; perhaps the article could mention the way in which Dej maneuvered against Jar and Constantinescu as part of his "I'm not Stalin" routine?

In addition to the trails you propose, there is indeed the issue of linking it to other articles, but I propose we leave the bulk of that to when we add more sourced content. I would also like to do something for flow in the sections that read like lists: presumably, one could turn them into commentary using sources as a basis.

There is still quite a lot to add, though. At the moment, I'm thinking about linking the concept to the ARLUS, the birth of Onirism, the return of various socialist realists to their avant-garde origins and the start of their [unusually] quiet dissidence, and, of course, a closer look into visual arts. We could also look, for example, in the Radio Free Europe archives for the period, where lots of interesting and immediately available stuff is just waiting to be picked.

One of the major problems this article has is that of quotes already in the text. Presuming we start citing the sources, what do we do if they aren't to be found in those available? Do we just strike them out? For example, I'm not sure that I can find the exact source for Beniuc's definition of the socialist realist poet; on the other hand, I could easily replace it with traceable quotes of the same nature. Dahn (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and: I would live the article on propaganda for later on. It is bound to be massive and require a lot of research, and we have to think of ways to structure it and somehow glue it to already existing articles. I would have to say it sounds a bit superfluous having a separate article for it, but it is certainly not unreasonable. Dahn (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, I'd rather have a secondary source telling me that it is relevant than a wikipedian, but, yeah, okay. It could even go in without page numbers, if all else is cited fully. Unless it gets too complex, you could perhaps ask him/her if there is anything else he got from that issue to use in the article, and if he actually read it himself/herself. Dahn (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Accident in Saint-Paul

Thank you for the translation. The right number is 27, thus 23+4. By the way, I think that you should change guardrails with something like slope, as a rampe is a part of a road with a high gradient and not only something that will prevent you from falling. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Semantron

Greetings! Well, I think that its usage in Bulgaria these days is very rear. Perhaps you can find semantrons in a few churches built during the Ottoman domination but it is usually replaced with bells as far as I have seen. Still it was widespread before 1878 so I will add Bulgaria and the Bulgarian name. Thank you for noting me that : ) Best, --Gligan (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On 21 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Semantron, 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.

--Royalbroil 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Darwinek wishes you a Merry Christmas!

Hi Biruitorul! I wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best in the new year. - Darwinek (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I still have not figured out whether Romanians celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25 or Jan. 7, but whenever you do celebrate it (maybe twice?) have a very happy one! :) Cheers, K. Lásztocska^talk 03:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Piotrus and friends, in the midsts of Wigilia, wish you to enjoy this Christmas Eve!

DYK

On 23 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Accident on the Saint-Paul ramps, 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.

--Maxim_(talk) 00:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Crăciun fericit

Well put, and I'm sure they are not thinking about us on May 1st. And Merry Christmas to you too! Dahn (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

salut, ai un e-mail sau o adresa de messenger?

salut, ai un e-mail sau o adresa de messenger, vreau sa discut ceva cu tine Adrianzax (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

speaking of wikimail, check yours...something very strange appears to be afoot...KL

CIA related articles

In the spirit of good faith and my attempt to improve a prior article with much POV in all directions, shall we discuss how intelligence generally, and CIA-specific, articles may be improved, rather than immediately calling for deletion? As you mentioned, there is coherent prose and sourcing, which should be a starting point for improvement, not a call for deleting everything around it.

Incidentally, there is a new Intelligence Task Force under the Military History project, and there has been some discussion of the challenges of writing NPOV articles on intelligence, not overly influenced by fiction or politics, on the general project list. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

As a common courtesy, please notify article creators when you nominate their articles for AFD. Thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ktitor

Hi, I was writing an article and came across the term Ktitor.. it's just a stub now, but I remember you asked me about it some time ago. Would you like to help expand it some? —dima/talk/ 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski

Since you commented in the last round, please note that the nomination has been restarted. Thanks for the comments and edits so far! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

2006 Ferentari riot

I don't know if you noticed that you were reverted at 2006 Ferentari riot. Yes, the material is poorly written and some of it is of dubious relevance, but the former can be fixed and the latter should probably be argued out on the article talk page.

Right now, the poorly written mess is the article, so it might well be worth getting back to. There does seem to be at least one relevant substantive disagreement: whether the deaths of the children occurred before the riot and were a triggering event, or after and it was simply a coincidence. I have no idea of the facts, but I assume that source materials should be able to clarify this.

Anyway, best of luck hope all is going well. - Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Day (printer)

Hi there. User:qp10qp and I have done a lot of work trying to bring this up to current FA standards. Could you take a look at the article again and comment at the FAR? Many thanks. BuddingJournalist 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, boy...

It looks like I am as close to getting the (much coveted) "Romanian Nazi" label as I'll ever be. Be still, my heart! --Illythr (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for contacting me, Biruitorul. I'm a bit busy at the moment but will have a look at that situation in a couple of hours or so. Best regards, Húsönd 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, seems like another user has already called on Mrg3105 to be civil and cease his accusations. He hasn't been uncivil again (at least on that talk page) and hopefully so he shall continue. Please report any further incivility/trolling. The Digwuren restriction may indeed apply here, but I was involved in this particular discussion so you would need an uninvolved admin to enforce it. Best regards, Húsönd 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah...

Happy New Year, and thank you for the welcome! I am bordering on rudeness yet again with my delays, so please accept my apologies (on the other hand, we do seem to have our hands full thanks to some newcomers and some old faces... akh!). To answer your questions: I still have no clue as to 1) and 2) - I let too much time slip between my edits in those areas and the present situation, so I wouldn't know where to pick at it. On the template issue: I could see no particular problem in what the one we had previously (i.e.: presidents), but it seems there's too many windmills out there for us Don Quixotes... It looks pretty silly to me, but, as long as it's not abhorrent, whatever keeps them content... (incidentally, how about Antonescu's weird job? if anything, what does that imply for such templates?). A for the "President" article, well, it currently looks like crap, but I'm not sure what the best approach is. Dahn (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael the Brave

Hi Biru, I just overhauled this article and would like to put it on A-class review as soon as posible. However any additions or copyedit would be welcome. Just take a look when you have some time... Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)