User talk:Dahn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:52, 2 March 2008

Chinese year

Thanks! Not been here a lot recently for lack of time... Happy New (Chinese - 7 February! - /Kurdish) Year also! Tazmaniacs (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birth place

Biographies normally begin with So and So (Birthplace Birthdate - Deathplace Deathdate). This is a useful convention. That is why I standardized the header of Ibrahim Muteferrika. --Macrakis (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kishinev

Have you seen this? Incredible! Since user:mrg315 attempt to move the Iasi-Chisinau Operation article to Iassy-Kishinev Offensive has failed he is always seeking revenge. This is going way to far, I think that we should report him. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my fault, I said that I agree to change the name of the article if he manages to change the name of Chişinău, I didn't expect that he's going to do that unilaterally without consulting other editors. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should report mrg for ignoring sources provided by Bogdan, incivility, edit warring, assuming bad faith and desruptivity. Which would be the proper place then? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Hi Dahn, just wanted to give you a heads up that an Alert was filed about you on WP:WQA here. [1]. It has been closed as it's entirely without merit, but you don't seem to have been informed about it, so I'm doing so now. cc: AdrianTM. Best, DanielEng (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albanezii din Romania

Imi explicii si mie ce relevanta are trimiterea ta acolo, mai mult, de regula Albanezii sunt mai degraba nationalisti decat cosmopolitii. Asta nu o spun nici ca lauda(eu insumii ma consider mai degraba "de dreapta"), nici ca insulta, ci ca statistica. Intrebararile mele sunt: ce legatura are un articol care pare sa fie despre Kosovo cu Albanezii din Romania? Mai mult, tinand cont de mentalitatea albaneza predominanta...de ce si-ar ascunde 2500-2600 de albanezii identitatea nationala? AdrianCo (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Se prea-pare ca am pornit pe piciorul gresit, da daca vrei u cearta...in fine : Problema numarul unu cu sursa ta:WP:V si WP:NOR:

Are 48 de pagini articolul si pe primul rand e mentionat Kosovo(asta ca sa stii de ce am mentionat Kosovo, ca bineinteles ca nu el era in discutie), faptul ca e o sursa furnizata/citata de specialistii olandezii(probabil aceiasi care testeaza Colgate si afla ca in 3 saptamanii ti se albesc dintii mai ceva ca neaua) ma lasa probabil la fel de rece pe cat te lasa pe tine afirmatiile mele. Asa ca fa bine si zi-mi si mie cam unde sa ma uit...pagina si locul...ca sa nu caut eu o ora cand de fapt u tre sa imi spui unde sa ma uit!
Cine a publicat articolul, cat de relevat este el acum peste 9 ani(ca tot vorbeam de Kosovo, articolul e din Iulie 99`,la scurt timp dupa Razboiul din Kosovo , excluzi tu oare posibilitatea ca ei sa fi fost refugiati, daca sunt, ca ti-am spus ca eu 48 de paginii nu caut?), explica oare articolul acesta cum de exista albanezii nedeclaratii in Romania ?

Ei bine, cand raspunzi la problemele de mai sus: cand imi spui pagina, eventual si randul, cand probebezi faptul ca nu e vorba(daca e vorba) de refugiati, cand imi spui si mie in ce context ai gasit tu sursa asta unanim recunoscuta de un oarecare numar de universitatii din Olanda, atunci o sa ma convingi...pana in ziua aceea cu soare....revert! si Seara buna! AdrianCo (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a)Referinta numarul 2 din articol(cea legata de numarul 3000) duce la fisierul format fdf http://www.isim.nl/files/newsl_3.pdf , care are 48 de paginii

b)Stiu ca nu se cere "unanima recunoastere", dar uneori umorul poate sa faca parte din argumentaie

c)Lenea e mare....si nu la prima pagina ci la pagina 34 am gasit :

Apart from the Turks and the Tartars, other Muslim ethnic groups can also be found in Romania, such as the Albanians who emigrated in great number after World War I from many regions of the Balkan Peninsula. According to certain studies, there are approximately 3,000 Muslim Albanians in Romania. They are fully integrated into the Tartar-Turkish community, not only by means of marriage, but also through the bonds of custom and tradition and by the sharing of mosques and graveyards. This makes it very difficult to establish their exact number. A fact that is worth mentioning is that the first translation of the Koran to modern Albanian (written with Latin letters), entitled K o r a n i (K e n d i m i n i) was published by Ilo Mitko Qafezezi Ð an Albanian from Romania Ð in 1921 in Ploiesti.

d)CONFORM CAROR STUDII???????????? Articolul spune ca exista "studii", iar eu o sa iti amintesc ca exista weasel words! Autorul o fi roman, dar el zice ca au fost studii? Studiile cui? Al lui?! El nu zice asta, el spune : "certain studies".

e)Nu te-am amentinat

f)Iar eu stiam ca exista o regula ca nu ai voie sa faci mai mult de 3 modificari pe zi....

g)Mi se pare logic ca pana la solutionarea unor probleme in ce priveste sursele sa fie lasata o formulare ambigua(in cazul de fata "Many/Multi") asta nu insamna ca am sters orice mentiune asupra faptului in cauza.

h)Hah?? Care criterii polictice vezi tu? Nu te-am acuzat pe tine de asa ceva iar daca e vorba de declaratia mea privitoare la albanezii atunci cred ca e irelevanta(si zicand asta imi retrag criterii pe baza WP:NOR, da, poti fi fericit, ce e ffff probabil nu e si adevarat....trebuia sa caut si o sursa,dar tot nu are legatura cu problema in sine)

i)Din nou tin sa repet ca "certain sources" e diferit de informatii de prima mana! Poate sa fie si de a doua mana, poate sa fie si un zvon, cert e ca dragul nostru roman de la isim nu pare sa se fi sinchisit sa mentioneze sursa. Lectura placuta! AdrianCo (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O mica mentiune pt e)...nu era vorba de razboi de editare...era vorba de faptul ca eu am dat un singur undo pana la clarificarea situatiei, eventual ori sa mai fie si altele, dar doar daca am o justificatie buna(cum in buna masura mi se pare ca am in momentul de fata). In cazul in care arugmentele prezentate de tine ori sa fie convingatoare, bineinteles o sa cedez. In caz ca nu o sa ajungem la consens...exista medierea! Lucru pe care il gasesc drept mult mai bun decat un edit-war epuizant si steril. Pe de alta parte ma mira promtitudinea cu care am fost amenintat eu ca o sa fiu "parat", de parca as fi facut cine stie ce afirmatie lezanta sau de parca in ciuda oricaror arugmente eu nu m-as fi lasta convins...AdrianCo (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha...din experiente precedente WP:A e folosit din pacate in multe cazuri in care cel care il invoca observa sugrezimea argumentelor sale DPDV logic dar se refugiaza in sursa sa. Bineinteles sper sa nu fie cazul! Cum spuneam, in cazul de fata eu nu vad de ce ar fi o sursa in sine, caci tot ce ne spune studiul isim este ca ar exista alte surse care ar spune lucrul acesta....cea ce este exact ce ai spus si tu. Bun, sa zicem ca lasam asa, ei bine atunci avem parte de un articol care are informatii bazate pe alte articole care trimit la randul lor la....nimic! Daca romanul nostru de la isim ar fi dat stdiile care raportaeaza existenta a 3000 de albanezii in Romania, atunci am fi avut de aface cu o sursa; dar noi in cazul de fata avem de aface cu o supozitie, caci oricat de respectabila ar fi o sursa, atunci cand ea mentioneaza existenta unor studii, ea le publica! Insa avem si surse, domnul profesor George Grigore citeaza niste surse dintre care cele mai noi sunt din 1997(despre tatari), 1995(despre turci)....si urmatoarea din....1976(despre Musulmanii din Romania), in cazul de fata avem urmatoarele probleme : a) nu sunt mentionate presupusele studii care ii atesta pe cei trei mii , b) insasi sursa sursei noastre referitoare la musulmanii din Romania este invechita(s-or mai fi schimbat lucurile din 1976...da asta e OR, asa ca ma multumesc sa ma limitez la deprecierea ei pe baza de peste 3 decenii diferenta)

Ar mai fi o mica chestiune, de fapt doar o rugaminte: mi-e greu sa ma tot uit la istorie sa vad modificarile care le faci tu in timp ce eu scriu raspunsuri....asa ca te rog incearca sa iti formulezi textul dintr-o bucata...pentru o comunicare mai facila....doar o rugaminte bineinteles. AdrianCo (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr George Grigore is professor at the Arabic

Department of the University of Bucharest and research fellow at the Center for Arab Studies, Bucharest, Romania. E-mail: grigoreg@hotmail.com There are two monthly publications, issued in Constanta, worthy of mention: H a k s e s (in Romanian and Turkish) and K a r a d e n i z (ÔThe Black SeaÕ; in Romanian, Turkish and Tartar). In addition, the Kriterion publishing house in Bucharest has been printing books in Turkish and Tartar languages since 1980. In the High Institutions of the State, there are two deputies in Parliament representing two political organizations of the Turkish-Tartar community in Romania, namely the Democrat Union of the Turkish Muslim Tartars in Romania and the Democrat Union of the Turks in Romania. R e f e r e n c e s Ð Ekrem Mehmet Ali, 1995, Din istoria turcilor d o b r o g e n i, Bucuresti, Editura Kriterion; Ð Mehmet Ablay, 1997, Din istoria tatarilor, Bucuresti, Editura Kriterion; Ð R. Florescu, 1976, Prezente musulmane n Romnia / Muslims in Romania. Past and Present / Maca l i m Islamiyya fi Rumaniya. With a Preface by Iacub Mehmet, Mufti of the Muslim Cult in the Socialist Republic of Romania, Bucharest, Meridiane Publishing House; Ð N.A. Gafer, Vladimir Drimba, ÔQuelques problmes relatifs au developpement culturel de la population tatare de RoumanieÕ, Bucharest, S t u d i e et Acta Orientalia, I (1958), 339-343; Ð Mstecib Ulksal, 1966, Dobruca ve Trkler, Ankara,

Trk Kltrn Arastirma Enstits Yayinlari —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianCo (talk • contribs) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah? Blockquote-ul de mai sus include referintele autorului, el spune ca astea sunt sursele lui, nu eu!=> nu am facut speculatii. Articolul mentionat de tine nu este o sursa, este o referinta la unele posibile surse, inexistente pana la proba contrarie. AdrianCo (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cu articolul de mai sus cel mult poti sa scrii in articol ca "exista surse care sustin ca ar exista studii care ar mentiona existenta a 3000 de albanezii in Romania". AdrianCo (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucru pe care l-am facut eu in locul tau...e bine acum?Mai exista vreo problema de exprimare sau de continut? AdrianCo (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taciturnul meu interlocutor.....din acel articol asta reiese, daca tu vezi vreun loc in care este demonstrat,afirmat sau citat faptul ca albanezii ar atinge numarul de 3000 de persoane te rog sa mi-l indicii....Domnul Dr de la ismi a spus ca "exista studii"...iar eu am spus ca el a spus ca exista studii...ceea ce mi se pare perfect logic si corect! AdrianCo (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Ba nu e tautologie pentru ca nu se repeta aceeasi idee,nici a->b . Ci a -> b , iar b se presupune ca ar putea sustine un c. AdrianCo (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Si da e corect sa spui ca exista studii care sustin ca exista alte studii care zic X(exemplu"Universitatea X a facut un studiu pe mai multe sondaje(alte studii) care sustineau Y") AdrianCo (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "Bă", it was "Ba". AdrianCo (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian translation

You providing it is good enough. We usually do this with foreign-language sources where the reviewer doesn't understand the language in question (I mean, just a few days back I passed something with a French source; not a problem for me). It's not meant to exclude them from Main Page DYK consideration; just to get an editor who knows better to review. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grigore Cugler

On 24 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grigore Cugler, 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) 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Balilla e mussolini.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Balilla e mussolini.gif. 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) 05:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Romanians. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information.Xasha (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

The sorting does not depend on what you or I or anybody else prefers. It depends on the rule which is adopted by Wikipedia, which should be followed. I don't give a damn on what the rule is, but refuse to be bullied into appying a rule based on personal preferences.

Any rule is possible.

Some prefer to have the accented letters follow the non-accented ones. Thus Ş should follow S

Some prefer to ignore the accented letters Thus S and Ş are identical

Some prefer to list the accented letters at the end Thus Ş should follow Z (or another accented letter).

Whatever rule is desired, can be programmed.

You indicate that you prefer rule 2. Personally I prefer rule 1. The point is not to discuss which of the rules is better.

However, for some reasons, Wikipedia has preferred, adopted and programmed rule 3. There is no policy statement indicating that other sorting rules should be accepted. Therefore I apply the rules regardless of my own preference.

As far as Gene Nygaard is concerned I have no debate with him and have nothing to discuss with ill-manered persons who were not taught by their mothers to use words such as please or thank you. He seems to have learnt to communicate at boot-camp; in any case this is the vocabulary he uses. Please be so kind and ignore any messages changed between me and him. I don't ask you to side with any of us, but please be so kind and keep this obnoxious person out of our conversation.

Regarding the information, I am probably getting old and forgetful, but I don't recall ever having discussed the matter of the boxes with you. At present I want just to finalize the list of rivers and the links between the rivers (which river flows into which and what the tributaries are. In order to get a picture of the network. I intend to get the rest of the information in shape at a later date.

After that I intended to get the names correct - especially as Romanian rivers have also Hungarian and German names which should be quoted. Also hydronomic information, as far as it can be detected, would be useful.

So any suggestions are welcome for the contents of the articles. Afil (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I requested Gene Nygaard to indicate such rules if he knew anything about them. In his response he simply indicated some discussions, not a policy or a rule. Therefore I have abandoned any Defaultsort statements in the articles.

I do not wish to get into further disputes and do not understand your message. I have nothing to discuss with Gene Nygaard - that discussion is closed. This is a discussion between you and me. Period.

The dispute with Gene Nygaard was refered to the administrators.Afil (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you agree with the elimination of the defaultsort statement, there is nothing more to discuss.Afil (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: The above is part of a discussion with Afil concerning his chaotic editing style and his disruptive take on the defaultsort system. He has deleted the other section from his user page, alongside the similar comments of another user - I'm linking it here for future reference. Dahn (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova

If you think the article is a mess, why not help us make it better. All criticism should be constructive. We'd surely need someone as experienced as you (judging by the fact you have significantly contributed to 2 articles considered among the best in Wikipedia)Xasha (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to refurbish the article according to the Manual of Style. Today it was proofread by a native English speaker, so we're on the good path.

I used sources for all my edits, so you're invited to prove me wrong (using sources, of course).

Note about your unblock request: I think you used the wrong form in the second, cause it says it was reviewed, even if nobody dit it.Xasha (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: kudos. It looks much better now than it did before. But the text is apparently still riddled with original research - from what I can see, it predates your edits. As for the possible objections to your edits, mine were so far mostly on the line of what Illythr said (which, in this context, is not about reliability as much as it about WP:UNDUE); note that this objection of mine also applies to the text that was already in there. I also note that the citations, no matter who added them and what they say, would still have to be copyedited and checked to see if they all comply with WP:RS. I'll have a go at more copyedits perhaps.

Thanks for catching that format issue - I had simply copied the form above and forgot to change all of it. Dahn (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		Milhist Coordinator election
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Russian-Circassian War

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dahn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not edit warring on the Romanians article. For starters, I was the only one of the users involved who actually discussed the matter on the talk page. Furthermore, the succession of edits will show that I did not actually push the same edits, that I did not remove any information, and that the last versions I had edited in had sources that dispute the info currently presented for "a fact". The accusation that I broke 3RR is false: my first revert on Feb 29 (my previous edit on that page is from Feb 26), my second revert on Feb 29, my last version before being blocked (also note this in-between edit by another user). The last I heard, it was not forbidden to edit an article more than four times in 24 hours. I also have to express a strong objection to the fact that the admin who blocks me uses as the rationale the fact that the version before mine was "the good one" - see here. Also note that my talk page says I have been blocked for "3RR", while the rationale on my block log is the vaguer "edit warring".

Decline reason:

see reason below.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dahn (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - "restore last good version" is a generic edit summary to show that I was restoring the most favoured version of the article. It is not a reflection on your edits. Additionally, I was recommended to restore to that version by another admin. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What admin and were? Dahn (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot reveal that admin as it was a private chat log. Additionally, there is no block notification for "edit warring" - I was forced to use the "3RR" one. Please just wait for an admin to review your unblock request rather than debating and extending all of the time. They will examine this fairly; there's no need to keep padding. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the blocking admin for additional input on the nature of this block. Pending his response, your unblock may or may not be granted. Please be patient. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per these sequence of edits, [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6], I see an unwillingness to leave seek consensus before returning additions to the article. Announcing your intentions on the talk page is NOT teh same as getting others to agree with your actions. If there are not enough responses from uninvolved editors on the talk page, please request a Request for Comment or a Third Opinion or attempt other forms of Dispute resolution, even if it means leaving the wrong version of the article in place while others comment. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if you are willing to review your decision, but it's becoming clear to me that the issue was misrepresented, and I'm quite perplexed that my request was sorted in a few minutes, without looking into how the diffs provided relate to the other versions and to the discussion on the talk page. I see that other edits from past days are invoked. The arguments against me refer to edits such as this one. If you read the talk page for the article, you will see that I have raised questions about the numbers and how they were brought into the article a year ago, and that the issue is still on the table, as was acknowledged by several users in the long archive of debates. In fact, if I remember correctly, the user who first added such conflated numbers a long time ago was since permanently blocked for this type of behavior. You will note from the discussion on the talk page that, in the past days, there was specific discussion regarding these accuracy of the template. An OR tag for the whole article was removed on grounds of being an overstatement, and I was asked to replace it with more specific tags by the other users participating in the discussion. You will also note that, as of this moment, nobody has removed those tags, except for a user who has never participated in the discussion. The tags are present in the "good version" reverted to by Scarian. Every single issue is discussed on the page, and my basic edits in respect to the addition of tags were in fact accepted by the other users participating. You see "unwillingness to [...] seek consensus"? Then how come most of my changes were kept in successive edits, including the one reverted to by Scarian? Dahn (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to request an additional review using the unblock template. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have attempted to explain above, the diffs invoked as evidence of me edit have been misinterpreted. For one, of the users involved in editing the article, I was the only one discussing the matter on the talk page. Part of those moves are the result of consensus: the first diff invoked, where I added the tags to the numbers in the template, was discussed and agreed on the talk page. Note that the second diff actually precedes it in time: at the time, I was placing a tag for the entire article. The discussion occurring at the time (which I engaged in despite the fact that the other user kept insulting me) resulted in a request that I replace the generic tag with specific ones. See here. Note that this edit was kept in all but one subsequent versions, including the one reverted to after my blocking. These tags are therefore the result of consensus, and there was only one edit to remove them, performed by a user who did not participate at all in the discussion, and who also removed a generic tag which referred to the fact that the article is unbalanced. As for the other tags: 1) the article history and the talk page will show that requests for accuracy checks were made by several users, and that, for the period invoked as evidence of edit warring, two other users were regularly and silently removing them. This occurred over a string of days, and the versions in question no longer have much to do with the current version of the article. Similarly, the other users were not warned, nor was there protection of the page in any version at any moment. 2) In the last version before I was blocked, I made edits which I discussed on the talk page for several days. After one editor reverted himself and noted that my rationale for tagging that version of the article was correct, the version I contributed shared nothing with previous ones: I rephrased a sentence for neutrality (as per the discussion on the talk page), I added other citation tags and hidden comments to explain them, and in which I provided links to sources which explicitly contradicted the data in the article. As you will note, the larger part of my edits in that last version were in fact invisible to the reader. I do believe that at no point have I trespassed what is permitted to an editor, nor caused problems for the article. Dahn (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. bogdan (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bogdan, but it seems that I am still not allowed to edit - I presume it's because they also blocked my IP (which incidentally I find particularly insulting, because I have never used multiple accounts in my life, and there was therefore no suspicion that I would). Dahn (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I'm trying to find out how to unblock it. bogdan (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I unblocked it. bogdan (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Thank you again. Dahn (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

da, merci bai tigane :)) Dapiks (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 261: / Line 261: @@
 :::: I think I unblocked it. [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] ([[User talk:Bogdangiusca|talk]]) 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 :::::Yes, indeed. Thank you again. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn#top|talk]]) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
+da, merci bai tigane :)) [[User:Constantzeanu|Dapiks]] ([[User talk:Constantzeanu|talk]]) 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)