User talk:Illythr

Archive 1 (2006) Archive 2 (2007)

Jassy-Kishinev Operation

Silent1936

Здравствуйте, я по поводу статьи про Ясско-Кишинёвскую операцию, её на каком то основании переименовывают в румынское название. Я переименовал обратно, однако не уверен, что переименование не откатят. У меня с английским довольно плохо, поэтому я вряд ли смогу объяснить другим участникам. Лучше вы скажите им, что в английской википедии должны быть английские названия, а не румынские. Silent1936 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Я сейчас посмотрел наверное я всё таки ошибаюсь, Кишинёв у них назван Chişinău, разве по английски так правильно? Silent1936 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

По-видимому, да, на этом и основываются аргументы сторонников румынского названия. Используются самые распространённые названия. Chişinău получило более широкое распространение, поэтому и используется. Та же история с Tighina. В отличие от них, оригинальное название операции как было так и осталось "Jassy-Kishinev operation", текущее только на вики используется, но что-то это до них это не доходит...

ЗЫ: Здесь принято писать по-английски. Для русского у меня есть соответствующая страница. --Illythr (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Husönd

You just pinpointed one of the reasons for why I think that Iaşi-Chişinău is the best choice: this siege is really not very well known and good sources for it are not so abundant, which naturally implies a lack of common usage in English. And since we have a lack of common usage, I think that the Romanian names are a more plausible option. And although I acknowledge that Iassy and Kishinev aren't bad options, I just think that they aren't the best. Especially when it comes to Iaşi. Best regards, Húsönd 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we can create our own terms here on Wikipedia, but the lack of consistent sources regarding the name of this siege make me believe that we should opt to have it named as the articles of the cities involved. Of course that books are excellent sources, but most of them cannot be found online for verification. And I should note that sources using the Romanian language should not be disregarded, because since that time they've been using the Romanian names Iaşi and Chişinău, both far more commonly used in English now than they were at the time of the siege. This is a tough case. Best regards, Húsönd 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position and think that your point is perfectly valid. However, I don't deem "Iaşi-Chişinău" a creation of Wikipedia, even with the lack of historical sources for that effect in the English language. I'll think more about this tomorrow. Thank you for explaining your position to me with such accurate detail. Best regards, Húsönd 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are sound. But Illythr, what would you do about Iaşi? There are sources stating both "Iassy" and "Jassy". Which one would be better? Such a mess. Regards, Húsönd 03:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, "Jassy" would probably be the most accurate transliteration (I always transliterate я as ja), but that could mislead many readers into reading the J as in jam. Perhaps it should be "Yassy", as we have "Yaroslavl". Regards, Húsönd 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Turgidson

Of course, my "Shakespeare" comment referred to the guy with the snotty attitude about his supposedly superior English, calling anyone who does not speak like him a "foreigner", whatever that means around here, and saying flat out that other editors--except him, of course--cannot read English. Never in a million years would I have thought you'd think I was talking about you. I'm totally mystified why would you think that. And, btw, I don't view saying of someone like that guy who so obviously flaunting the civility rules a "would-be Shakespeare" a sign of tit-for-tat incivility. Such a moral equivalence assertion does not hold water, at least in my book. I hope you will agree. Turgidson (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, glad to hear we cleared that misunderstanding, at least. And, if that's any consolation, I've been called both an "anglo-american imperialist" and "a spy or a guy paid to accuse Soviets", so perhaps being called by that charming chap a mere "foreigner" is a compliment, by comparison? Take care, and let's try to solve our differences in content disputes the right way—fair and square—as I hope you'll agree we both tried to do in the past. (I certainly do hold that view.) Turgidson (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot possibly reply now to all your points, let me just select a few--more later, perhaps. First, a matter of easily checkable fact: the ANI report was initiated on his own volition by Eurocopter Tiger, for completely different reasons (said user has chosen to port his frustrations with Romania on the respective article, insisting that it should have as alternative names certain obsolete spellings); I simply joined in the ANI discussion, at Euro's request. Second, sorry to hear it sounded to you I was claiming the "I-C offensive" article for myself -- that was not my intention. I merely said that all the new sources added in recently, as well as the inline citations, were due to me, which I still think is being factual, though normally I would not even mention that (as you can see from my user page, I maintain no "brag" list of articles I've worked on, and other such things, except for a barnstar). And I know you've worked a lot on the article, and so did several other very good editors. But it's frustrating to see how some people can just come in and throw around their weight, and blow lots of smoke--even invoking the naming conventions policies, when they cannot even spell the names of the cities involved. I mean, I welcome the debate, and hearing all those varied opinions, but one should have the decency not to insist too much, unless one is willing to bring something to the table--sort of like in a poker game, though here the currency being some meaningful edits that actually improve the article, or perhaps some incisive insights that can substantially affect its tenor. I don't know how you view this, but that's how I operate around here: I do voice my opinions sometimes even when not heavily involved in a project, but I do tend to keep my voice down, unless I have invested some non-negligible amount of Blood, Sweat & Tears, or I have some special expertise--preferably both. As for why I took those comments personally, I rather not go more into it--see though the ANI discussion for more. Turgidson (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105

I'm curious, in the end, why did you oppose the move? В сущности Тихий1936 был прав.--mrg3105mrg3105 09:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?! I was actually the first to notice the name change and propose the move. Эээ, ты что, ни одного моего поста в теме не читал? --Illythr (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Извини, очень внимательно читал, и со многим согласен. НО, ты воздержался от голосования в конце концов а я не знал или мой голос вообще считался. Во всяком случае я думаю что твой голос не засчитался и это и стоило результата.--mrg3105mrg3105 09:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Call me an idealist, but I believe that an obvious fact does not need to be voted on, merely stated and sourced.

If during a vote you want to state that you are merely commenting, then put comment in place of your vote. --Illythr (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll call you an idealist if you call me one :o) I had no idea I was going to get that sort of an "argument" when I first proposed the move. However, I suppose 'comments' don't count in a vote,and that is what the move was turned into even if I expected a reasonable discussion--mrg3105mrg3105 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea as well, when I proposed the move on the article's talk page. No, comments don't count. I did count both of ours as "support" because we so obviously do. Looks like I was the only one counting that way, though... Oh well, Wikipedia does have its tedious moments... --Illythr (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am for now going back to the serious business of the Eastern Front project, but this is not over by a long shot--mrg3105mrg3105 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

poll

When we announced every MilHist member regarding the election, we did it manually. So we should do this manually also. But if you do it, please invite all the participants, not just the ones who support the renaming. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Us

Don't worry, we are all still here. Just experimenting with mushrooms :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Moldovans

You asked me to explain the necessity to mention in the infobox the fact that the numbers are from census results. The reason can be found even in trhe article: Moldovans [...] are the native population in, depending on one's interpretation, all or part of the lands that correspond to the former Principality of Moldavia. This interpretenation is true. Moldovans live also in Romania, where they are seen as a ethnic subgroup of the Romanians. The population of the moldovan region from Romania is, according to censuis 2002, around 4.5 Mill. persons. The almost entire Romanian population from Ukraine are also Moldovans (excepting the Romanians from Transcarpatia)--Olahus (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The population from eastern Romania are seen as Moldovans (in Moldova and in Romania too). The divergences are in another point: in Romania all the Moldovans are seen as an ethnic subgroup, while in Moldova they are (sometimes, but not always) seen as an ethnic group related to the Romanians. Even in Moldova it is not sure that the declaration "Moldovans" on the census might be a proove to say that they don't consider themselves to be Romanians. In Moldova, the term "Moldovan" is often seen as a synonim to Romanian, so there is no problem if somebody says "I'm Moldovan" instead of saying "I'm Romanian". The language taught in their schools is called since the independece on the country "Romanian language", not "Moldovan language" anymore (excepting Transnistria). They also learn "The history of the Romanians", not "The History of the Moldovans". Even in some official pages, you can read: The majority of the population are Moldovans (Romanians) (as here, for example).

Well, returning to our discussion: the fact that in northeastern Romania do live Moldovans is accepted both in Romania and in Moldova. The siingle question remains: what exactly are Moldovans?

I think it's a good idea to move this discussion to the talk page of the article Moldovans. --Olahus (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, why did you designate the source about Voronin as "rabid nationalist crap"? Actually, the newspaper "Molodova Suverana" is known for his anti-romanian attitude. So, please be more accurate. Did I insult somehow Mr. Voronin saying that his step-father was Russian? Hmmm, I really doubt it. --Olahus (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the infobox, how shold we act to provide an impartial information? We have only 2 options:

1. We mention that the datas are census results ans we keep only them, or
2. We mention both data census and estimations (with references, of cource)

So, how shold we act? I think the second option isn't bad. In the infoboxes it isn't unusual to mention also the estimations. --Olahus (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: I don't think any estimations are necessary when official census data is available. No doubt, data census should be kept. I think, the estimations are necessary, because both from Moldovan and Romanian point of view, the population from eastern Romania is moldovan. The explantion can be founud in the article. I made some edits in the article Moldovans. I hope you agreee with them. I tried to keep a neautral point of view. --Olahus (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked: Again, what kind of estimations do you have in mind? You mean the estimations for the Moldovans in Romania or the Moldovans from all over the world? --Olahus (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understood what you mean. I made some changes in the article: The majority of Moldovans live in Romania, where they represent the Romanian population of the counties who belonged to the former Principality of Moldavia: Suceava, Botoşani, Neamţ, Iaşi, Bacău, Vaslui, Vrancea and Galaţi. On the Romanian census from 2002 4,577,139 Romanians were counted here. During the communist era many Moldovans migrated to industrial centers from another parts of Romania, so that the real number of Moldovans might be even higher. Some estimations count the number of Moldovans in Romania at around 6-7 Million, and the Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin spoke about 10 Million Moldovans living in the neighbour contry, though this number seems exaggerated--Olahus (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I also brought this source: Some six or seven million people in Romania consider themselves to be “Moldovans” as an integral part of, not distinct from, the Romanian nation. (Voronin’s figure of 10 million seems exaggerated). Most of them inhabit northeastern Romania, which was the western part of the historic Moldovan Principality, the eastern part of which is today’s Republic of Moldova.--Olahus (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an original reasearch. Those are the census results. The fact that the Romanians from eastern Romania (better said: the counties Suceava, Botosani, Neamt, Iasi, Bacau, Vaslui, Vrancea and Galati) are Moldovans isn't doubted by anybody. I only inserted the number of the people who declared "Romanians" in those counties according to the 2002 census.

Why shold be strange the phrase "Moldovans who declared themselves "Moldovans""? Illythr, we must keep the Neutral point of view. --Olahus (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Did the Romanian census have an option "Moldovan" to choose from. No. they don't, as the Ukrainians don't have the option "Podolians", "Galicians", "Transcarpathians" etc.

Or, rather, based on what source did you include them as Moldovans? Because they are the population who live in the territory of the former Moldovan Principality. From the stalinist point of view, Moldovasn are surely a separate ethnic group. But the meaning of Wikipedia is not to make stalinist propaganda. So, we must present the article from a neutral point of view. --Olahus (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Voronin

Unfortunately, i don't have any knowledges about the russian language. Could you please search a russian source? --Olahus (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation request

I'm reading this article of Moldova Suverana. Can you please tell me what "cemodan, voczal, Rossia" means? Dpotop (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. I knew what "vokzal" means (as in Vokzal dlya dvoikh, a very popular movie in its time in Romania), but "cemodan" didn't ring a bell. Which is weird, because we say "geamantan" (or "valiza"). It appears the word comes from Turkish. Dpotop (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, are there statistics available on the number of readers of Moldovan journals? I wonder which is the hierarchy in terms of numbers sold. Dpotop (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Chisinau

War monger, you put "solders" before "victims". Just kidding. :-) :Dc76\^talk 14:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:-P It's just the way I read the phrase in some En article about a similar monument. Besides, the stela is primarily dedicated to the soldiers who fell during the J-K operation - it has an Eternal Flame and a military cemetary next to it. --Illythr (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Drøbak Sound

Just as an example; Fjeld, Odd T. (ed.): "Kystartilleriet 100 år" - THE book on Norwegian coastal artillery - constantly refers to the Kopås guns as 15 cm guns and the Main Battery guns as 28 cm guns, while the Husvik battery pieces are referred to as 57 mm guns. This is how Norwegian coastal artillery calibres are designated in all Norwegian texts, several of which are written by military officers. The line seems to go somewhere around 7 cm/70 mm, seeing as Norwegian 65 mm guns are labelled with millimetres, while 7,5 cm guns are labelled with centimetres. What does the gun names have to do with anything? Manxruler (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Example from the text of Fjeld's book: "-Königsberg (light cruiser) suffered three hits from 21 cm shells, the most serious penetrating the engine room without exploding. The two other hits rendered the vessel unseaworthy. The number of dead and wounded is not known. All the hits came from the 21 cm battery at Kvarven." (from the German attack on Bergen 9 April, 1940.) 21 cm rounds from the 21 cm battery. Manxruler (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Norway is different in many ways. Still, the Brits seem to accept our standards. Dildy, Douglas C. Denmark and Norway, 1940: Hitler's Boldest Operation; Osprey Campaign Series #183; ISBN 9781846031175. Osprey Publishing, 2007 uses the same exact system. Manxruler (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A different issue

Biruitorul's article Barthélemy Boganda is considered for featured article. Given that, his numerous DYKs, and his record of 31,000 edits, including 26,000 in the mainspace, I am considering to propose him for RfA. However, I think you had such idea before I had a similar one a year ago. How about doing it together (or maybe 3-4 of us)? :Dc76\^talk 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is he? Am I so ignorant lately? Looking at his page, I don't see where it says he's an admin, nor I can find him in any sysop lists. Since you were the first to whom I wrote this message, I couldn't write in the past tense: I have left similar proposals to Dahn and Jmabel. If they also agree, maybe we can make a joint proposal. (I don't want to leave the impression I am claiming "authorship" where it is obvious many others have proposed that long before me) Also, I have no idea how to write the proposal. And I am afraid to write a bad one. At any rate, I intend to leave a message to Irpen and Mikalai as soon I will sign the proposal, since I think it is fair they know it - I understand they were the ones who opposed him a year+ ago. :Dc76\^talk 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll wait the other two guy's reply, and if they don't have anything specific, I'll just use, as you say, from that exists.

Generally I do a lot of stupid things that require deletions (such as naming a category article and creating unnecessary, intermediate things that in the end need erasing - if there was an RfA for me, I would refuse, b/c when I have a tool I first do all stupid things with it to learn how it works, and only much later something intelligent). Historically I asked Khoikhoi, TSO1D, Future Perfect at dawn/dusk/sunrise (forgot which one), and several others for help, never thought of Biru. :Dc76\^talk 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not just mistakes. It is like giving an airplane to someone who learns to drive a car. It is very dangerous. People generally know of the degree and nature of bad stuff they tend to do, they just seldom admit it. (I believe the majority of plains are crashed in good faith.) I have more than enough tools and freedom on WP already, and my rate of participation is already at the top of what my real life allows me. Also, I have a general problem of writing well what i want to say (in real life, not only on WP), if an article of mine would ever get to FA, it will snow in July. Biru can teach many new editors (with his mere example) how one should write/edit. You however should consider RfA one day. There is no Wiki-project Moldova today, but some day... :Dc76\^talk 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to do stupid things that can not be undone with one button. Stupidities get done when people try to outsmart themselves: it is a whole sequence a things that has to be undone, generally mixed with a whole sequence of good things. You can always return WP to the state it was some hours ago, but if it would came to that (millions intermediate edits in vain), it will get you prime spot on CNN. So, not so far from real life after all. In real life, one generally suffers the consequences alone. In WP, "one" is the entire community. But of course you are write, there is a clear difference... :Dc76\^talk 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made the proposal: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2. Could you, please, read and edit it as you wish, then sign it, as well. Since I am not a native speaker of English, I am bound to make strange formulations and bad punctuation... You can also erase/reformulate/add whole phrases or even paragraphs, I will have no objections. Jmabel also got a similar message from me. Dahn was slow to answer, but I guess there'll be no problem if he joins later.

After you and Jmabel sign, we should inform Biruitorul, for example use {{subst:RfA-nom|A couple users that sign below|2}} ~~~~ (which is easy), and to transclude the nomination page to the RfA page (which is super-complicated for me; I asked Jmabel for help with this). Best regards, Dc76\^talk 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

we. that's why I'm waiting for you and Jmabel to sign. If you think I was rush, I am sorry - I can blank out the page (Jmabel can even delete it). No vote occurs, no clock ticking until Biru accepts. You think he might refuse? In that case, I can not undo, so I'll just be the guilty one. But I wouldn't feel embarrassed if he refuses, so "valyay na menya". Dc76\^talk 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just the proposal, I thought we could do the proposal together. Here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2 I've written 3 paragraphs. Feel free to edit them as you wish. Sign after the words "which sign in random order".:Dc76\^talk 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

he doesn't know. Dc76\^talk 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it has been a busy day today, I hadn't time for WP. (it won't get much better for cca. a month) I see the vote has started, so I guess you or Jmabel finished the needed formalities for it to role (thank you). I also did not wait for Dahn only because I expected to get busy. I am sorry to hear it somehow got Biru by surprise, now I destroyed his whole next week in real life. That's the reason I made the draft of RfA proposal yesterday. I regret a lot I missed the chance to inform Mikkalai and Irpen of this RfA: unfortunately they interpret it as addressed against them. They mention "Hungary"...? They imagine Biruitorul will block users editing Moldova or Transnistria?! I think the biggest worry should rather have Bonny's socks. On a different front, I see nice progress on Moldova. I agree with your latest modifications there. good night.Dc76\^talk 00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The 4 articles Moldova, History of Moldova, Moldovans, and Moldovan language have became infatuated because of the coming of Xasha. We all saw that. I am not saying that 100% of what he introduced is bad, but it is clear that his coming has steered the things (though the end result might eventually be positive) It is naturally to assume that many user have, like me, these articles in their watchlists, and I for once would react to a change in such an article much quicker than in the other 200 I have in my watchlist. If there is a Romanian Nationalist Cabal, where can I join? :-) I believe every person is entitled to expressing doubt and questioning any edit. If one looks at things in a scholar-like manner, one doesn't mind when 80% of his arguments are being demolished. One doesn't care about own vanity, but about soundness of the arguments. If, on the other hand, one looks at things in a political manner, one minds when even 1 of own edits is even remotely questioned. My point is that Biru belongs to the former category. His edits in talk space show search for answers to various questions/arguments/etc. The fact that his edits in the mainspace are very diligent show that he makes a clear difference between everything-challenging everything-questioning academic-like discussion, and the correct and formal language of a presentation. I, although hope to, although I believe I improved over the last year, have not yet achieved that, at least not where Biru stands. In short, a honest person has nothing to fear, a dishonest has to know all ins and outs to protect himself. I would be very-very surprised if Biru would use sysop power in those articles at any time in the near future. Especially, if as a result of that some of those articles would shift the standing. As I read, he has offered to resign at the first doubt. But I think it would be ok if he would revert and block Boni's socks in those articles.Dc76\^talk 14:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Infatuated? :-) --Illythr (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I've put all sources needed, but those Romanian editors that deleted my contributions failed to acknowledge them. I've brought the results of 3 censuses, the International Organization for Standardization, the Constitutions of Moldova and Transnistria and even an official declaration on behalf of the European Commission. They deleted all of them. I would like to bring this issue (including the repeated removal of reputale source) to a larger audience, but I have no idea how to do it. Non-Romanians editors just seem not to be interested in Moldova issues.Xasha (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, sorry for intruding, however writing "but those Romanians..." is very-very uncivilized. :Dc76\^talk 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

His concern is probably a small minority of editors, some of them not even Romanian...;-) --Illythr (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Like Hitler/Stalin/Vlad Tepes wanted to kill all Jews/intelligentsia/beggars b/c he/he/he minded a small minority, some of them not even... ? It is a bad habit (in general) to attack people rather than issues. Humans have invented justice, only a court should attribute guilt personally. Fight, abase, kill a phenomenon, an institution, an idea, never a person.:Dc76\^talk 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If only everyone would listen... --Illythr (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I used "those" (i.e. the ones relevant to our discussion) exactly to avoid generalization, but it seems Wikipedia editors lack good faith. All of them (the ones who deleted my contributions ont the page we are talking about) are Romanians, and this puts them in a conflict of interest (due to the way education system in Romania treats the subject).

All source were in the article for everyone to see (just a mouseclick on the superscript number and you had the details of the source, and in most cases, a link to it - in English language, as Wikipedia recommends). I tried direct discussion, but I only got strange replies (one refused to discuss the arguments because he thinks the relation between Quebecois and French is different than the one between Moldovan and Romanian, one edited just because another editor who deleted my contribution was a "moderate editor" (?) others said the Moldovan language is not a language but a name (?), others just said they revised it -I suppose that's what rev and rv mean- but, instead of updating the article, they downgraded it). So I can see no way how putting the source again on the Discussion page will help. I'm thinking about mediation, yet I'm not sure if it can have any effect (it says people involved can refuse to participate).Xasha (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean, if the sources get deleted - post them along with your proposed changes on talk. It's always best to get your opponents debate your sources, and not you directly. French - well, the article deals more with the controversy than with the actual dialect, but I suppose you can ask him about the difference more directly. Rv means a revert. And the Moldovan/Romanian issue is really more political than linguistic. --Illythr (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, am I allowed to take part in the vote about the Jassy-Kishinev Operation?Xasha (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's not closed or something, although your participation will be ever more welcome if you bring some new arguments and sourced along (contributing to the article is always preferable to all the bickering going on there). --Illythr (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that people have made quite an effort to prove the English language name, and I doubt I could find any more English language sources than the ones found by the participants in the discussion. ( My reading was concentrated on the cultural and social aspects of history, and less on the military one. ) I'll refrain from voting, for now at least, because I saw some editors want to create the impression that all who support the move want the destruction and humiliation of the Romanian people. For some strange reason, they think that by considering myself a Moldovan-speaking Moldovan I am a threat to the Romanian nation. Xasha (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking very hard but I can't seem to get it. Maybe because it's 2:30 AM.Xasha (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about you saying I'm not Anonimu, don't worry, I was already aware I am not him. Altough this comparison intrigues me (there was another editor who did it a week ago, but Dc76 dismissed it). His "Request for Arbitration" page says he was an uncivil Romanian editor with "rather different" political opinions. I can only infer these political opinions included supporting a Moldovan language. Xasha (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mind is an interesting thing, I think I might have seen that discussion somewhere, forgot about it and then came up with the "original" idea that you might be Anonimu -- that only because it was suggested that you might be a sock. I would actually say "no" if I were to bet, but I threw that in the talk page for I don't know what reasons... probably because I read it somewhere. Go figure... -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I don't like the forms about Moldovan language: two of them say the one who dispays them is an idiot, and the third calls the language "moldovenașcă". Maybe I'll edit them, but I have left only one restoration per 2 days, and I don't want to risk getting such insulting/wrong forms on the page about my username.Xasha (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone's been playing around with them...--Illythr (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Clark/Union of 1918

"Nationalist flame"? what do you mean exacatly? I have not read all of it, but... You know, if you put that kind of standard, that not a single word of opinion, then not a single Soviet or Russian source would fit. I do not see an distorsionment of the facts in his presentation. :)

But Bessarabia did chose to unite of its own will! I can understand about the 36 MPs that did not vote, defenitevely clear about the 3 that votted against. But the 86 for, they were never influenced. They were the ones that started the 1905 events in Bessarabia, then the tsarist autorities chased them away, then they came back. The movement had a strong etno-centric character, because the people were deprived of education and administration in their own language: it is a simple as that, one extreme provokes another. I really don't get what you mean by chaging the vote in a few weeks. They never voted for union before. This was the only vote!

Now, we don't have to like it. But we have to admit that those people wanted it, and achieved it. All the rest is speculation. How could the 86 people be persuaded in a few weeks, if many of them were unionists since 1905 or before?! I hope we are talking about history, not present-day politics... :) Dc76\^talk 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, take your time. (I won't be on WP today) Like Biru, I challenge you :-) to bring forward where that "flame" has found way into mainspace. :-) Honestly, I am looking at this from simply technical point of view.

I detest ethno-centric movements, especially when led by people with very little education, who can be and are swong away by anyone who has power. Their result is always a conservative come-back, as it happened in our recent history. It is easy to struck your fist at your brest and say "we are so great" - How often these people dare show their fist to the power?! (rhetoric) cowards. Dc76\^talk 17:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed an interesting reading. Half of it is correct, the other half is utter non-sense (like romanian army taking some isolated vilages months before, villages located way-way east/south - Sărata Galbenă and others - the author of those lines rather assumed the reader does not the geogrphy in detail and wont see a false right away), and paragraphs/sentences like that are mixed together in a strange way. I rather like the just noticed ro:Republica Democratică Moldovenească. Very short, but nothing but facts. There exist whole books about 1917-1918 events, I simply did not (still do not) see it a priority for me to contribute with that in WP. There are many other things I want to do first.

There was definitevely a lot of oзposition and fear to the idea of Romanian army coming, there was a lot of oposition to the idea of Union with Romania. But there was also a lot of support. That is not reflected at all in the ru article. I think I repeated several times that there were problems when Romanian officers saw how Bessarabia peasants take the land of (generally ethnically non-Moldavian) big landlords. I have several point-refs like that to introduce to WP, which will present the Romanian army in a very unpleasant light (sometimes, the info comes from pro-unionist contemporaries, so zou get the idea). What I am sazing is that the waz Romanian armz was view by the population was mixed, not one-sided: positive b/c they brought security, negative because they opposed expropriation of land. In the end Sfatul Ţării did in Bessarabia (1918-1920) the most radical land reform.

The MRD was proclaimed just as Sfatul Ţării gathered. It was absolutely natural, and frankly speaking it would have been very strange if before even forming a government, MDR would proclaim independence. As it was very natural that there will be a proclamation of independence just around the corner. Some wanted union with Romania right away, others wanted independence first, then to see. In the end, the events took the day: Ukraine became independent, so MDR did the same thing. Up to here almost noone oposed. Differences started when the question of Union with Romania became imminent.

I want to point one thing in all Soviet / Russian sources related to those events: they completely fail to name all the actors by name, who did want and when. Because that speaks a lot: that shows that the leaders of MDR were unionist since 1905, and only a small minority (rather 10%, not 30% as one would expect) were anti-unionist. Do you know that the German minority eventually hold a congress in Tarutina and voted unanimously to support the union? The minority groups were not pro-unionist, but they were also not anti-unionist. Compared to what happened beyond the Dniester, they were very happy. If there would existed a independent MDR, surely the Red Army would have tried to conquer it. Not to mention that Romanianization policies started only after 1923, if not after 1927. I have also some very eloquent citations from some Russian (often pro-greater Russia) people: journalists, politicians. Again, it is a very vast area, and not yet a priority for me. Dc76\^talk 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Independence was not a realistic option in 1918, and people from Sfatul Ţării understood this. Without Romanian support, Bessarabia would have been anexed by the Soviet Union. Soviet Union made several military provocation against Romania after 1918. Romania saved hundreds of thousands of bessarabian lives, not allowing Bessarabia to be conquered by the Soviets, saving this region from the horiffic experience of holodomor and repressions.--MariusM (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how you probably missed most of the argument, let me remind you that the threat of Soviet annexation only appeared with actual independence. MDR was originally proclaimed part of Soviet Russia. Anyhow, opinions on what should've been done are out of that discussion's scope. --Illythr (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"A Federal Russia", NOT Soviet Russia. That they all wanted out of Russia, and this was just a start, was pretty obvious from their actions immediately afterwards. Dc76\^talk 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, yes. A "February-to-October" federal Russia in which soviets were the alternative legislative councils, where a democracy had been introduced to a degree not paralleled anywhere else in the world but in Switzerland (if hardly working in practice), where land reform was a reality, and where all ethnicities were proclaimed equal. The main problem with supporting the Romanian option, and this was painfully obvious, was that Romania was perceived as the enemy of all these things, and, in addition, was a defeated country. To a certain degree, some Bessarabian leaders may have even considered that the Soviet option was not as bad as it sounded, especially given that Bolsheviks in their immediate vicinity, as well as in the Caucasus, were still cooperating with other parties (at least on paper). After all, even some Romanians from Romania were convinced of this, and were spending time in Odessa helping a Mr. Rakovsky (whose citizenship was...) plan a strike against the Romanian government. What I think nobody could avoid noticing is that their option for Romania was a last resort, and that it probably helped that Romanians were turning this into a fait accompli by moving their forces in. I'm not saying that they were coerced by Romania (and I'm not sure if Illythr is saying that), but the issue of "Romanian brotherhood" was probably not a priority even for those more sympathetic to the cause. That, I do believe, is the whole picture. Dahn (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RSFSR it was. Obvious? Some of them, the "lobby group", of course, they only needed to convince the others and some Romanian military presence to back them up should anything go wrong. I believe, this is called "patriotic thinking" by the profiting side and "irredentist sedition" by the losing side. The others then pick a side based on their own political interests. --Illythr (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Coerced: The Sovied POV seems to imply that, but I think no coercion was really necessary. The situation had merely turned out to be favorable to those who desired such a union and they succeeded at lobbying it through. --Illythr (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RSFSR was just proclaimed by Bolsheviks. I don't think in Bessarabia on 2 December they new details of what's going on in Petrograd. Anyway, nobody believed Bolsheviks would stay alone in the power for 70+ years.

However, "no coercion was really necessary. The situation had merely turned out to be favorable to those who desired such a union and they succeeded at lobbying it through." is precisely what happened, at least as far as I understand. My addition to this is that those individuals were then more or less the elite of the nation. Their names are somehow omitted from the articles.

Hm, I suppose the difference is in the assessment, then. I do not judge the actions of that group as "good" or "evil", and somewhat resent one side's eagerness to present them as national heroes or "progressive" (I learned from Soviet history books that "progressive" means "supporting our POV"). A little addition to my last statement: I understand that several pro-Communist (?) members of the presidium were executed during that time, so that might count as at least some degree of coercion. --Illythr (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious to learn more: who were the pro-Communist members of the presidium who were executed?--MariusM (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard only about pro-Romanian leaders killed by the bolsheviks, like Simeon Murafa and Andrei Hodorogea in 1917 source.--MariusM (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The names given are V. Rudiev, Cotoros, Prahnitsky, I. Pantsyri (Moldovans) and one P. Chumachenko, a Ukrainian, executed on Movila's orders. --Illythr (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, I really-really hoped you wouldn't mention Cotoros. I have not heard about the other guys, but definitively I know who this one was. He got the position of the military commander of Chisinau in December 1917, and with that authority he went through the suburbs of the city and expropriated a lot of stuff from people. On several occasions there were very serious physical altercations with the population. In the end, people went to Sfatul Tarii and demanded this guy to be investigated, they threatened with uprising, and promised they would answer with gun fire if he ever enters their villages again. The investigation was conducted be the legal authorities of the Moldavian Democratic Republic, and the witness account was so overwhelming, that he was condemned to death. He was a criminal. Dc76\^talk 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how the source I'm citing is a Soviet one, it is quite possible it lumped everyone who was executed at the time together as victims of the pro-Romanian regime. Was he a presidium member? Where do you read this from? --Illythr (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is from my memory. I read it in here: P. Halipa, A. Moraru, "Testament pentru urmaşi", Muenchen, 1967, reprint Chişinău, Ed. Hyperion, 1991. Moraru was one of the organizers of the military forces of the MDR. He described Cotoros as a guy whom he trusted, a very initiative person, and was so much disappointed afterwards when peasants came to talk about "uprising". The passage I recall was partially a mea culpa of Moraru. Guys like Cotoros are the reason Romanian army was called in. It is a different story if the army exercized that "indefinite threat" that Churchull liked to call the Singaopre fleet in 1941 (eventually sinked by the Japanese like cardbox). Let's not forget, this was in tha wake of the Brest-Litovsk Peace: all of Belorussia and Ukraine were supposed to go to the Germans. And Austrians were already in Hotin and Lipcani.Dc76\^talk 23:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's where I dug it out. Page 136, the text about newspapers and stuff. No idea about its reliability, but that particular passage (at ref #5) is attributed to a 2000 book by one I. Levit, who seems to be good. --Illythr (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, it is much more simplier than that: Ion Pelivan, Stefan Ciobanu, Pantelimon Halippa, Daniil Ciugureanu, Ion Inculet, Paul Gore, Gurie Grosu, Alexei Mateevici, Alexandru Baltaga, etc and of course Vasile Stroescu and Constantin Stere were to Bessarabia what George Wshington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the group for the United States. Were they one sided? Absolutely! Did they brake the yoke of feudalism? Again, yes. Were they opposed at the time, and for the century after, were they blackened by the royalists, by a good part of the French-Americans/Canadians, distastefully despised by the Iroquire? Of course. Yet, we hardly remember even the name of the King of England at the time. Some more educated people would remember Cornwallis, if not only for his love affairs. And my point is: Romanian Army played for Bessarabia the role of Lafayette for the USA. Dc76\^talk 18:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To Dahn: Romania was perceived as a "social enemy". The mass of peasants of Bessarabia were not at all eager to live under an administration by those who quieled the 1907 peasant revolt in Romania. Thank God, Romania became more democratic after 1918, much due to the influx of "fresh blood" from Transylvania, Bukovina, and to a smaller extent Bessarabia.Dc76\^talk 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this within the scope of this discussion, but I your observation about the role of "flesh blood" is tickling my paradox sense. What Romania gained immediately after the union was a constitutional crisis, which was solved by the old blood of Mitică and the National Liberals, who, with Ferdinand as their pater familias and Averescu as their pawn, resisted the changes demanded by the "fresh blood" and the Wallachian cooperative movement and made their own constitution on one knee. Now, the document was a fair one, but only because the Liberals had come to have it their way (there were no Conservatives around, and their own antisemitism was passé) and because the entire civilized world decided it could not accept Romania's refusal to comply with some basic standards. It was however designed so that it would block out any attempt by the "fresh blood" to take over and actually do something meaningful (as wrong or right as that "something meaningful" was). As for the "fresh blood" itself: there's Maniu and Stere (who weren't really fresh, and who spent a lot of time trying to actually appeal to someone), there's Mihalache (who wasn't from any of those provinces), there's Vaida-Voevod and Goga (who engineered some of the most anti-democratic measures in Romanian history), and there's Inculeţ (who was one of the consumate opportunists). Other than that, the political fauna stayed pretty much the same except for two valiant "fresh blooded" young men, who did indeed rock the boat at a national level. One was Codreanu, the other was Sima, and I don't think citing them substantiates the point you were making :). Dahn (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dahn, Have they done something to your family in 1930s? Are you considering me idiot, you think I meant Goga, Sima and Codreanu (who was old ragatean, BTW)? Try more names of mainstream people, not fanatics. And your liberals from 1920-23 weren't much better than the ones today. And BTW, politics is but an aspect. There was no constitutional "crisis". Why such big words, "crisis"? They made a "Adunare Constitutanta" because there sort-off was a new country. The old liberal-conservative bickering was over. Mitica have lost! :) Dc76\^talk 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can cite more mainstream politicians, but they wouldn't be either "fresh blood" or from those provinces (Codreanu was indeed regăţean, but by then so was Stere; also, his family, including his "fresh blooded" father, was very Bukovinan). Also, if I were to include non-political people in my assessment, I wouldn't really be addressing the point - which is about the political system, not about art or literature.

It was very much a crisis, in the strictest of senses. Nobody, including the Liberals, wanted the old constitution, and they quarreled with each other endlessly about what next. The Assembly, you may remember, went through a coup (a quite literal coup), and then the Liberals had a free hand to draft their own constitution (the opposition parties preferred to deem it "the Liberals' constitution", and they desperately wanted to change it but couldn't - even when they engineered their own coup and brough Carol II back). The reason why they had a new constitution in 1918-1923 was not "a new foundation" of "a new country" - and the liberals made efforts to make it clear that Romania was not "renewed", just bigger. The reason was that the old one had been outdated by 1900, and some of its provisions had been outdated more than twenty years before they came to be... Mitică won on all fronts: the Liberal patronage over capitalism was preserved, centralism won in all the regions, and flamboyant nationalism returned to stay.

As much as I dislike the Liberal tradition in Romania, I am not writing this to spew my discontent. Granted, as I have said above, we could have done a lot worse than Mitică, and the peasantist goal in the economic field was a joke (not to mention those of other homegrown ideologies). Though I poked some fun (at all sides), I don't believe that most of those people were vile, and I don't think there's anything wrong in pursuing one's interests. In fact, I'd rather have a society where people's interests are known, instead of a society were they become taboo and we all pay homage to the father figures of the nation - be they Liberal or peasantist or, worst of all, Legionary. The lack of transparency, the tendency to build shrines to all sorts of arcane concepts and the obsession with saving face are what have handicapped Romanian society from those decades to this day, and have made it possible for all sorts of demagogues and manipulators to place their little claws around our minds. If I could have it my way, I would preserve Romania as it advertised itself after August 1944, before the process was hijacked by communists - a democracy where the traditional institutions are not antagonistic, where the 1923 democracy has been amended into something truly fair, where at least the more rabid forms of nationalism are marginal, and where the economy is not subject to any idiotic experiment.

And no, they haven't done anything to my family. Back then, one side of my family was lower middle class - one part was National Liberal to the core, and the other left-wing peasantist; the other side was of peasants about whom I know little, except that one of them was a guard at the Royal Palace, a Legionary sympathizer, and then the first peasant in his village to sign up for the collective (this because he actually owned no land...). I've had both communists and people who went to jail as "reactionaries" in my family, and I also have relatives who were captured by the Soviets on the Eastern Front. Oh, and, incidentally: they were all ethnic Romanian, except for some who were Bulgarians. Now that I think about it, they are pretty representative bunch of that whole little world. But, as I wrote above, it's not what "they" did to me or my country, it's what "they" did to this country - the good things and the many uniquely bad things. Dahn (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

While I reduced my wikipedia activity lately, I thought I just stop by to say 'thanks'. Your good faith is appreciated. Also, you do not need to worry too much about the effect of Vecrumba, Martin, et al commenting on myself. I am used to their attitude and take it with humor.

In fact, the thought of having several user with nothing better to do with their lives than follow me around and commenting on my edits at unrelated boards, articles and talk pages fills my heart with deep sorrow for the people who can't find for themselves any more productive and interesting activity. The Vecrumba's talk page archives you linked to have several more examples than the one you found (the simple ctrl-F search for my username may point to some). And his talk is just a small grain of the entire wikispace where these fellows express their fine attitudes.

Anyway, thanks man, and take it easy. Regards, --Irpen 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am interested to hear Vecrumba's response anyway. I certainly did not expect him to join in in that talk section of his. I do not intend to lecture him or anything like that. It's just that I still have faith in him, as he's perfectly reasonable and sound... until he hears the magic word "Soviet", that is.

To make this discussion come full circle, I think you guys should have given Biru some good ol' GF. I think that responsibility would've been sufficient to make him stay away from (or calm in) potentially WP:COI actions and topics. It's not like he's going to run amok with the mop or something. --Illythr (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I say that I trust Biruitorul not because he would stay away from controversial topics as a rule, but because he would be contributing to those articles neutrally and on the basis of reliable sources, regardless of his POV. He has consistently shown he is interested in many subjects which he can deal with neutrally, many of which have nothing to do with Romania, Moldova, Russia, Orthodoxy or whatever else. For example, I remember he, the churchgoer, complained on my talk page at some point, saying that there was no part in the Romanian Orthodox Church article to cover the controversies surrounding it. He clearly wants all the relevant POVs to be listed, and considers an article complete if it gives neutral coverage to all issues. I have rarely met an editor, let alone an editor who is supposed to have a POV, actually wanting to have all relevant sides included. I have also seen removing nationalist POVs from among "his own", or rephrasing non-neutral content to something impartial. I would elaborate more on the RfA page, but the last comments in his favor are turning into too much of a good thing, and, like their counterparts, are down to the level of harangues - which, of course, is not Biruitorul's fault.

Yes, I see, a wrong choice of words on my part. Stay away - not from editing, but from using admin tools in potential COE situations. --Illythr (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On a different note: Illythr, the article Moldova still looks like something the cat dragged in. I could not possibly list all the ways in which it breaks with WP:MOS, and it is still riddled with irrelevant and incoherent statements. Will there be any copyediting in the future? Dahn (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What it really needs is a big housecleaning, whereas I'm more used to relatively small copyediting. I'll see what can be done... --Illythr (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on my talk in response to yours using the Holodomor article as a backdrop. :-) —PētersV (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Geography and politics

Refering to a modern Moldova-related thing as Bessarabian is generally a sign of Romanian irredentism. The site of the Romanian (right wing oriented?) news channel Realitatea TV never uses it.Xasha (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, could you please help me deal with this [1]. I find it insulting when someone calls me not from my country. I really don't like this new friend of yours, he has no respect for others. If I see "Northern Bessarabia Plateau" on the map (spanning a bit of northern Moldova and a little of the Chernivtsi region till Hotin), I am what, iredentist, because I look at a map one can buy in every bookstore in both Romania and Moldova? If this guy won't stop, I'll have no chance but to start collecting material for an RfC. He uses very graphic words, so I can catch him pritty easy. Dc76\^talk 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm already at it. Now I may be considered acting on your behalf, though. Anyhow, I would suggest bringing (preferrably English) sources of your own to consolidate your position. I understand, Moldopodo provided a heap of those supporting "steppe". --Illythr (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I supposed to ignore inaccurate articles just to spare someone's feelings? Silly me, who thought this is a scientifical undertakingXasha (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how should I act towards Shook2008?Xasha (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a message to two of the administrators (the third edited last time 3 days ago). Thanks for showing me that link to check suspect users. (I really have to learn the Wikipedia jargon :) ).Xasha (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to end the thing going on on that template. But as long as that page presents reality in biased way, I have to act.Xasha (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer

Well, it was probably supposed to be a question with the answer given below... I'm not sure why didn't I put a question mark after it :) You are probably right, nevertheless. Alæxis_¿question? 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye on my userpage :)) Alæxis_¿question? 21:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

600,000

[2] I am sorry, but I am afraid I do not understand at all what you mean. You are from Chisinau, aren't you? HOw can you not know about this? Do you remember that day? This was a unique meeting. Normally, no more than 30,000 participated. There were 2 attempts to repeat it later. The largest, on 2 September 1990 gathered 80,000. But I am speaking of the one on 27 August 1989. People came to it from all of Moldova. Yes, 600,000. Upper estimates were over a million, but those where exagerations. There were people who walked four days to get there. There were thousands of buses. Not only the central square all the way to the cathedral was full, but streets around as well. Circulation was closed in the center. There are people who never got to the square - it was to packed - they had to listen to it through megaphone. Absolutely everyone knew what they came for:

1) State language ("Limba de stat")

2) Latin alphabet ("Alphabetul latin")

Every child knew this. So, I guess you were on vacation outside Moldova, or you were to small, if you do not know all this. Every Moldovan knows this. This was a unique event, that never happened before, and I doubt would ever happen again. Dc76\^talk 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"I doubt that most saw beyond the pretty words"

Indeed, I was one of those who did not. Dc76\^talk 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, you will also discover some harsh languague in the talk of Transnistria. I hope you would understand that I only reacted to the comparison with calls for ethnic violence. In fact, the style of the newspaper (Tara) was not something I liked, and I do admit there was quite a few non-sense there in some articles in the early days (personally, we did not subscribed it, just got random issues). My point is that the paper has never crossed or was close to cross the line. Dc76\^talk 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

the "ten commandments" were obviously idiotism, to say the least. where can i read them? Dc76\^talk 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Moldova

It's up and running, please join! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Theory

You have a little theory about people who insist on using "Вы" (=Dumneavoastra) on informal projects like Wikipedia or forums. Can you share it with me? I've met such people and I would like to know what are the latest studies about them.--MariusM (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather intrigued and would like to know this also :)) Alæxis_¿question? 14:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. :-) --Illythr (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Moldova map

I've seen on almost every article about Moldavia and Bessarabia there's a map of 1920 Romania, claiming to be there just to represent Moldova inside Moldavia. I think that's just a mean to impose a certain opinion on the reader, and I want to change it with a more neutal one. I've found this image on Talk:Moldavia. However there are some problems: 1. It has a strange name (arabic or hindic) 2. It uses Turkish "Bucak" instead of standard English Budjak 3. It is drawn/uploaded by a banned user. What do you think about it? I really don't want to go to the back and forth editing I had on some articles (especially considering some have compared me with that banned user).Xasha (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I modified the image using GIMP, but I couldn't find the same font, so I used Arial for writing Budjak (for the other text modifications I copied images of the letters already present on the map). Here's the result: [3]. Xasha (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't think anyone would notice if I left... AdrianTM (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did, so it doesn't count! Wikipedia doesn't let its victims go so easily... A wikibreak is the most you can get away with! Unless you've got yourself married or something... --Illythr (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what happened with Adrian? Nergaal (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He left. You can mail him and ask directly if you'd like to learn more. --Illythr (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Popular Front of Moldova

You were going to find this sooner or later, so I may as well tell you about it up-front :) . I think it survives the NPOV test, though. Biruitorul (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes... (Pulls a wicked-looking pen-knife) >:-E --Illythr (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually looking for a pen-knife for "Bessarabia" - you know, just some {{cn}} tags here and there... Anyway, yes, good point you make about my ability to maintain neutrality. It's also evident in my new Pentecostal Union of Romania; I doubt that by reading that you could tell I think the church should, how shall we say, disappear? (Note to anyone trying to divine sinister intent here: I mean by means of voluntary conversion.) Biruitorul (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost recognition

Thanks for pointing that out - it's gratifying to see that someone is paying attention to our humble labor. Hmmm...It is interesting, though, I almost feel like the authors should have thrown some quotation marks around the phrases that were taken word for word. At least they cited the source. :) jamason (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

M

I think you made that M error as well. The applicable ArbComm case you had in mind is probably this one. --Illythr (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, they're all the same ;) Stifle (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bender, Moldova mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bender, Moldova, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bender, Moldova. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Dobriy vecher!

No problem, but each map have its advantages, and depict also the actual partition, so I dont't understand why Xasha delete the physical ancient one. No problem, but the formulation: "Bukovina, Bessarabia and eastern Moldavia compose the ancient Principality" mean that B., B. & e. M. exists IN the ancient Principality, but that's wrong. This regions began their different existences by, since & in the austrian and russian empires. --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently writing a response on the article's talk page. It's best to keep the discussion there, so that other regular contributors may add in on it. --Illythr (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your efforts on Talk:Bălţi are very commendable. I am afraid it is a matter of principle for him never to accept to be even 1 mm wrong. He must have had really a very hard life to become so stiff. Dc76\^talk 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm certainly not trying to convince him of anything, as this is obviously impossible. However, I'm curious how long will he be able to avoid/ignore the facts that directly contradict his theory, as we go down to individual words of the law. --Illythr (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PMR

Thanks for the link! There is definitely some interesting info there. I wonder what ever happened to the student — Nick — that he happened to run into. I wonder if he ever ended up producing anything. The pictures are cool. It looks like others have also been photographing the forbidden building... :) jamason (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Romania caused the war?

Have you seen this? jamason (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather odd move indeed. I doubt it'll impress Moscow much. Funny that even Anjufeev only said "it's possible". :) --Illythr (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Antyufeyev isn't exactly a reliable source... actually here for following... PētersV (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

His reliability is not relevant in this case. It's just funny - Voronin managed to issue such an unusual statement, that even the PMR authorities were reluctant to accept it, even though it'd justify their continued independence. --Illythr (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in case

The Soviets transmitted signals to Hitler's invading Luftwaffe to assist the invasion of Poland. Or do I need to clarify my comments? :-) PētersV (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, for a moment I thought it said that Russia should acknowledge that USSR started WWII. Perhaps add "thus" before "starting", although its grammar is correct already. --Illythr (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Narva-Pskov direction

There was a reason I did not link these. Narva-Pskov was a defensive line position, and not a part of the direction of withdrawal. In other words the path was a T, the first three tracing the direction of withdrawal, and the T-top being a new defensive position. Hence, the Narva-Pskov is subject to a different article, and the reader need not refer to either Narva or Pskov, neither of which articles will say a word about this position. There is no need to link everything. Please, ask me about anything you see as my "mistake" unless its an obvious mis-spelling. I really do try to pay attention to what I write, and although I do not claim to be faultless, nor am I just making use of the keyboard. On the other hand, I did not realise that links can be made to articles without using caps, so thanks for that--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming of campaigns on the Eastern Front

As somebody interested in Eastern Front articles, you may wish to submit your views here [4] about how, collectively, we name them. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can contribute anything significant to the discussion. Same as with the Jassy-Kishinev operation, I maintain that the most common English name should be used as the article name, with the long, precise, official etc name(s) - in the article lead and as redirects. But that argument was already made in the discussion and doesn't seem to register on Mrg, so I doubt I can add anything novel there. --Illythr (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly has registered, and not only that, but you can see it in practice. Battle of Kiev (1943) is actually about three strategic operations, never mind the smaller component ops., not that anyone has noticed till now. So, if I was Buckshot06's "average", but still thinking reader, I would ask myself, "why is the article named one way, and the actual operations named another?". I suggest that maybe Buckshot06 needs to write an article explaining how the "average reader" is not clever enough to figure out the "long, precise, official etc name(s)" so we had it dumbed down for the reader ;o) Thank you for your suggestion though Illythr. I find it funny that I am being discussed as being insulting while the discussion to counter my suggestion is about how to insult as many people as possible in one fell swoop. Stay positive ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with insulting anyone or "dumbing down" - a common name is just that, one of the available names that is known to the largest group of people. A good (if done to death) example is the correct, official long name for the United Kingdom, which is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland": it can be argued that "United Kingdom" is too imprecise and can be applied to a number of sovereign entities led by a monarch. Nonetheless, all but the most pedantic will look for the short name everyone knows and associates with it. As for bias, note that these operations are listed under their short name in Soviet/Russian encyclopediae as well, see, for example, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia article on the Prague offensive, Battle of Kursk, etc. --Illythr (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Join the new Moldovan Wines project !

Hello, how you are from Moldova, maybe you will be interested in development of the Moldovan Wine articles. If yes, I am pleased to invite you to join it on the Project:MoldovanWines project page. Best regards, --serhio ^talk 09:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: baiting

You're quite right, and I fully intend to ignore such provocations as far as practicable. Nevertheless, I refuse to be called a racist, an anti-Semite or a fascist without consequences for those who slander me in this way. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, you may well be correct. Truth be told, I didn't put that much thought into those notes, and I really was taken aback when even there Xasha found something to bash me with. If you want to remove '41-4, you are welcome to do so. If I'm so inclined, I'll revisit the issue on the template talk page one of these days. But right now, for obvious reasons, I'd rather let matters cool down a little and think about subjects other than Bessarabia. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why the discussion was promptly taken far away from Wikipedia. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be a few people ahead of you for that role, but you'll have some sort of part, rest assured. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldova

I'm not impressed by your threats. I quote my edits. Calling the newspaper Flux "nationalist" ... you just proved your bad intentions. Besides, the article just cited a Historian who argumented logically the legal status of the annexation.

Come on! You understand Romanian. Read the article! --Olahus (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want. Your edits seem to condemn everything that has to do with Romania and they are far from impartiality. --Olahus (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, I guess. --Illythr (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

What's the right place to report harassing editors?Xasha (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that Ourscrazy2009 (talk · contribs) is not a sock of Bonaparte, but of Olahus?. Or maybe it's actually just the same real guy in all these incarnations?Xasha (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You can request a checkuser against Bonaparte and see what they find out. There is no evidence that ourscrazy is Olahus, so asking a checkuser on that is not feasible. While there are some parallels between Bonny and Olahus (disregard of Wikipedia rules, reiteration of the same arguments in categorical form "X is the right name!" and just some plain old ad hominem (see above)), I don't think there's enough evidence that they're one and the same. Olahus seems to live in Germany (it would be interesting to check him against this Germany-based vote shopper), whereas Bonny seems to be based in Romania. Besides, Olahus does listen to reason [5], and generally backs his statements with sources, often with valid ones, as opposed to Bonny, who's just having fun. --Illythr (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

in re: Bonaparte

I guess I was stuck in AGF mode, but there's been enough drama that I didn't want to enflame it further... not that it could get much more heated. Thanks for the catch, and for (calling in) the block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Illythr, good to see that you're still around. :-D Cheers, Khoikhoi 19:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

huh?

[6] Good to see you around, too :D adriatikus | talk 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

'Twas Bonny again. I don't mind - time spent vandalizing someone's userpage = time not spent vandalizing mainspace articles people actually visit. --Illythr (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

eM-M-M...

About this Perhaps you would like to join this order? The number of admins mixing up that arbitration with this one seems to be growing steadily. --Illythr (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't mix up those two cases as I didn't even know about the other one. One, apparently, is for the Balkan states while the other is for Eastern Europe. I did not confuse Moldova with Macedonia as you imply. Those two countries aren't on opposite sides of the world, you know... as this map suggests, Moldova could be considered at least partially in the Balkans. Because the Macedonia case allows general sanctions to be applied to articles related to the Balkans (not just Macedonia), "defined broadly", and because I was not aware of the case that allowed general sanctions to be applied regarding Eastern Europe in general, I invoked that case, not the Digwuren one.

Both describe the geographical region related to Olahus's problematic editing (although one more undisputably so than the other) so I don't understand why it matters which case I invoke and where I post the violation. I don't know what "order" you're talking about and I don't find whatever joke you were trying to make funny. -- tariqabjotu 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldova is not a Balkan country. At least, in according to the most common definitions of this region, it is by far not a Balkan country. This map is obviously an original research and the author did'n mention any source of the map (actually, what source could he have at all? ). --Olahus (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldovans

See this discussion. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC) I answered here. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian-German relations

Hello Illythr, just to let you know there is now Moldavian-German relations article. Since you speak German, may be you could (whenever you have time) make some interesting contributions and expand generally the article, also from German sources?--Moldopodo^talk 00:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, are you sure that you don't speak German? :) Look what I read in your talk page "Ich schreibe Beiträge für die deutschsprachige Wikipedia" . hahaha !!! --Olahus (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, is there a point to this particular edit of yours? I see nothing odd when one editor invites another to work on an article when he doesn't have the time to do it himself. --Illythr (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of Moldavia in German

Illythr, I know for sure there was an agreement signed between Germany and Moldavia (in 90's?) where both parties fixed the usage of Moldawien (I think). I cannot find it as of now, do you know anything about it, where to find it? Thanks in advance.--Moldopodo^talk 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just found it:

Moldova, Moldau oder Moldawien - was ist richtig? Die offizielle Bezeichnung des Landes in der eigenen Sprache lautet "Republica Moldova". Anfang der 90er hatten Deutschland und Moldova eine Vereinbarung getroffen, dass die offizielle Bezeichnung in der deutschen Sprache "Republik Moldau" lautet, denn für die Bezeichnung "Moldau" spricht aus sprachlicher Sicht, dass die rumänische Endung "-ova" mit "-au" zu übersetzen ist (Moscova = Moskau, Ostrova = Ostrau). Außerdem hat die westlich und östlich des Flusses Prut gelegene Region eine geographische Einheit gebildet und seit jeher in der deutschen Geographie den Namen "Moldau" getragen. Eine geographische Bezeichnung "Moldawien" hat es im Deutschen nie gegeben.

Übrigens: Der Name der Republik Moldau hat mit dem Fluß "Moldau" der sinfonischen Dichtung Smetanas nichts zu tun. Aber im Nordosten Rumäniens gibt es einen weiteren gleichnamigen Fluß "Moldau", Rumänisch "Moldova". Dieser Fluß hat sicherlich bei der Namensgebung der Region den Ausschlag gegeben. --Moldopodo^talk 15:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the official German denomination of the country is Moldau (Republik Moldau), but Illythr still thinks that the article should still be called "Moldawien". It's useless.--Olahus (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Moldopodo agrees with me (and the majority of German Wikipedians, who have so far resisted your dogged attempts to push your version through). The article above doesn't help any, unfortunately.

BTW, nobody has disputed that the (long) official name is Republik Moldau, AFAIK. --Illythr (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ethnic

You ask me for a POVish answer. What I think is unimportant and irrelevant. But if you want, I explain you how I interpret the term "nationality": in the sense I mostly occur the sense of this term. I think I was clear enough. Illythr, I give you an example ofr your case: you live in Germany but you have the Moldovan citizenship, despite of the fact that you are of Russian ethnicity. If questioned about your nationality (Nationaliät) in an official questionnaire, what do you answer? Moldovan or Russian? ;) --Olahus (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Ok, Illyth! Let's make a deal to finish this absurde discussion that seems no become endless: we write that the term "nationaliy" is often interpreted as "ethnicity". Ok? But we should also add that sometimes the Moldovans are regarded as Romanians (as in the page of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism). Agree? "often" vs. "sometimes". I think is't a good deal. And in order to respect both opinions, the mention of the estimated Moldovans from Romania (for god's sake, it's just an estimation!) in the infobox should be kept (of course, with the mention that the data is estimated).--Olahus (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you ask for a poll, than I'll have a better proposal: let's everyone of us write a proposal of the article and let the user vote which one of them is better. Agree? --Olahus (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

in re: Xasha et al

As I said, it's not a dispute that will go way overnight. Thank you for the background, though; I've watchlisted some of the problem articles, and will try to help keep an eye on things. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A good set of criteria, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as at least certain administrators (most of the ones I've asked about this matter) claim there's no difference between the two, I find this disparity in applying remedials strange and detrimental to Wikipedia's quality, especially on Eastern European topics. When I joined Wikipedia I expected to create content and raise the quality of the content already present, not to act as a public prosecutor. So while LessHeard vanU seems to be expressing a long-lasting unwritten rule of Wikipedia, I can't stop from noticing the significant difference between "official policy" and a sort of Wikipedia common law.Xasha (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Wikipedia administrators shouldn't be like the regular forum admins, cause Wikipedia markets itself as an encyclopedia (and a neutral one) after all. They should do more to moderate this behaviour. And Wikipedia is closer to myspace than real life. I'm not good at this text-only socializing; call me old-fashioned, but I use text-only communication only for technical info, and Wikipedia discussions are far from being just that, although they should. Maybe when Internet will get a hold on Moldova, things will get better, but for now, I'm quite distressed that on every internet discussion on Moldovan topics people from Romania are more than 70% (thing that generally happens with Hungarians on Transylvania topics, according to a Romanian friend... those East-Europeans and their national myths... ;) )Xasha (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not an excuse, especially for those who became admins after a self-proposal. There's a great responsibility that cames along with that position... after all, every one of them is something like a little Diderot. You're right about Romanians, but due to economic reasons, their minorities is sometimes more visible on the web that our majorities. As for the Moldovan citizens who support panromanianism :they aren't so muany, but they make a lot of noise, and the media really likes that. In no democratic country you'll see the media presenting on large mainstream ideas (I'm not talking about documentaries). Normality doesn't sell on the free market, it's as simple as that.Xasha (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

His Majesty

That page has been subject to some rather strange POV-pushing for many months. I am a committed monarchist, but not the sort who likes to obsess over what certain trivialities in their lives (in particular I find the Queens of Romania tremendously boring). Nevertheless, I will have a look once things calm down a bit.
By the way, I note I have yet to provide an opinion at Talk:Moldovans - I suppose I just like the sound of the phrase "constant drumbeat" more than anything else. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

TSO

Well hopefully you won't have the chance to stick with this habit, since I'll try to be a bit more disciplined and not disappear for months on end again. In any case nice to see you again!. TSO1D (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad

1. Cite an inflexible Wiki regulation prohibiting an increase in font size of one point in the introductory paragraph of one of the world's major man-made catastrophies of the twentieth century. If you cannot, then the larger font goes back in.

2. What is the reason that the image should not be there when it portrays with appropriate poignancy by far the greatest element of the human suffering, and the greatest infamous significance, of the Siege of Leningrad? Those who would close their eyes to this are deluding themselves. --JHB (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no inflexible Wiki regulations. However, font deviations are strongly not recommended (per WP:MOSCOLOR), due to consistency issues.

Because it's a shock image. While the most correct images depicting wars would be pictures of piles of corpses and parents, grieving over their dead children, I don't think such images will help the articles any. --Illythr (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Soviet-German blah blah blah

Well, now you can see the guy who is ready to spend all his life claiming that Hitler had some "parochial prejudice". He is at work again. Suggestions? He seems determined to carry the petty message to the world. Colchicum (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It violates NPOV by passing a judgement on Hitler's actions, even if it's 100% factual. So out it stays. --Illythr (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Russia isn't that bad because I value religious freedom to a greater extent than political freedom. Political freedoms are essential in a democracy. Nonetheless, I have a respect for governments, and I hate to be the one that points the finger just because governments fail to achieve spectacular success. Most voters are dumb and vote for the nicest sounding candidate and think that they will get gold paved on their streets "within a hundred days", as Roosevelt would have it. And then when the economy slumps, or the war in Iraq drags on, its the governments fault and we should impeach them? No, governments, unsurprisingly, are made of people, and people make mistakes. When too many mistakes are made, they are voted out. Thus, I have a general rule that if a government is doing overall a fairly good job, it doesn't deserve criticism, even though we are still entitled to criticize it. And, since, according to my perception of possibly censored Russian media, the people living in Russia aren't starving, they aren't sent to Gulag camps orcrushed by Tanks. Basically, they are not persecuted wholesale.

In the middle East however, my Christian brethren are being persecuted to a high degree. At the end of March, A Chaldean Catholic Bishop was martyred. Heroically, he called his fellow members at Church asking them not to pay any ransom money for him. But the persecution is not the result of the Iraq War. Rather, extremists in the region have always wanted to taste Christian blood in the area - Simele Massacre, Assyrian Genocide, etc. These two events occured around 1914-1920 and 1933. Thus, being of the 20th century - a century of supposed greater enlightenment and equality, it makes one wonder what persecution existed before such values came about. Indeed, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Kurds are the only indigenous people of Mesopotamia. How does a group of people who were once 100% of the country in 600 AD become 20% total (15% of which are Kurds) in 1400 years? Persecutions, in the form of Timur's massacres of Christians, or on some occasions, forced conversions (though not frequent I hear) have a part to play. And I have not even mentioned Pontic Greeks or Armenians - all of these ethnic groups have been ethnically cleansed to a small degree by Arabs, but especially so by Turkey - that country, which continues the spirit of the Ottoman conquest with its invasion of Cyprus, its threat of war against Greece if Greece should claim 12 miles of the Aegean (Turkey has already claimed 12 miles) and its various laws against "insulting Turkishness" - farses designed to legitimize persecution of any scholars, Turkish or non-Turkish from exploring these events in any more detail than the official stance of "oh there was no genocide only famine/civil war/nonexistant deaths. You cant tell these are lies, because the Turkish government's excuse for the genocide switched from complete denial of any deaths to assertion that it was simply ethnic violence. The Arab states have been far more civil - thats why Egypt, Jordan and Syria have a 10% Christian minority and why Yasser Arafat went to a Christian Church every Christmas to celebrate the birth of Christ.

I cannot say that Russia does not persecute some people, especially politicians, or that she has persecuted people in the past due to ther religions. But nowadays, the Middle East remains one of the few places were Christians are treatd de facto as second class citizens despite ridiculous laws guaranteeing de jure equality. Thus, my anger is directed by my personal values. If its soap boxing, then wikipedia will remove it, but I won't remove my views. Oh yeah, thanks for the heads up on the grammatical error about Pol correct. Tourskin (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical name of Tskhinvalli

Please see http://armenianhouse.org/bagrationi/history-ru/dictionary.html and http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus6/Wachushti/text4.phtml?id=244 - two excerpts from the historical Georgian chronicles. Type Кцхинвали. The first page contains a brief index of geographical names as defined in the Annals of the Kingdom of Georgia by Prince Wachushti Bagration (around 1745):

"Кцхинвали, Цхинвали — малый город в Картли, к северу от Гори."

Also:

"La 5e remonte la vallée dans laquelle coule le Fiag, traverse le canton Ossète de Sakha et les monts de neige, et descend également vers le Liakhvi, qu'elle suit jusqu'à Krtskhinvali en Géorgie",

found in: "Tableau historique, géographique, ethnographique et politique du Caucase" by Julius von Klaproth (published in 1827).

Also:

The name of this place would be more accurately given as Tskhinvali or Krtskhinvali. It has lately been renamed Staliniri."

found in: Count Todtleben's Expedition to Georgia 1769-1771 according to a French Eyewitness D. M. Lang Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 13, No. 4 (1951), pp. 878-907

More results from RUssian sources: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&pwst=1&q=%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%86%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

--93.177.151.101 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my goal was to ensure that the "historical" claim is supported by something good to move it to ruwiki, as a lot of people are trying to rename articles about these cities to their -i-less forms claiming that those are the real names. BTW, with these kinds of sources, you don't have to post to my talk page, but be bold and replace the fact tag yourself. Well, I did it now anyway. --Illythr (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of Russian Apartment Bombings page

We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Здравствуйте

0K, I do my best, you can help me. In the other hand, my English is poor, excuse-me. Sincerely between us, about the Moldovan/Romanian controversy I consider that:

1)- If the will of the major part of citizens of Moldova is independence and not union with Romania or anymore, the neighbours (all of them) must respect this will; so, the Moldovan citizens, all of them, are NOT Romanians politically ! But many Romanians refuse to admit it. It's not my case. I'm not a nationalist, not a fascist, not a communist, I'm never said "kill" or "crush" the "enemy", I'm only a simple man and I love the russian culture ans especially music and movies.

2)- The political will, citizenship and reality must be considered and described without POV, but can't explain some not-political and not scholar realities:

• If Moldovan and Romanian are two different languages, why can I understand the both without school, learning or translator ? Am I a fool or a lier ? Are 24 millions persons (the Daco-Roman speaking people) fools or liers ?

• If the Swiss citizens can be equally Swiss, all of them, even if they speak german, french, italian, why the Moldovan citizens cannot be equally Moldovans, all of them, even if they speak a slavic, romance or turkish language ? Why, only the romance language-speakers are definied as Moldovans ? (despite the international rules : when you give a Moldovan passport on a border point, you ARE a Moldovan, even if you speak only russian...)

• If the russian- and ukrainian-speaking Moldovans can use freely russian or ukrainian language and enjoy the russian or ukrainian culture and history, why the latin-speaking Moldovans cannot use freely romanian language and enjoy the romanian culture and history, if some of they want it ?

• If the german-, french- and italian-speaking people from Switzerland can use freely their languages and enjoy their culture and history in frienship with Germany, France and Italy, without accusations to be "agents of the german, french or italian imperialism", why the slavic-speaking and the romance language-speaking people from Moldova are accused to be "agents of a foreign imperialism" by one or other part of opinion and media ? Why Moldova cannot be free and peaceful as Switzerland, after 17 years of freedom ? Why this cold civil war ?

May be am I a fool with this questions without answers. But may be tomorrow, the future generations consider our collecive madness as me today... Who knows ?

Best wishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy about Moldova

Please don't link your newly created article from other ones before it it brought into some shape first. Right now it's pure WP:AFD fodder.

Also please don't turn section headers into wikilinks - it's a Bad Thing. --Illythr (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me - I am not addressing the POV of the article yet, only its encyclopaedic value, or rather, its current lack thereof. It also has absolutely nothing to do with Russians (Ukrainians etc) and their culture. As for opinions, mine is that ethnicity has always been a political thing.

• That's clear ((Ernest Gellner, States & nations)

It helped unite the various Vlach tribes under a single idea, which IMO is a Good Thing.

• Vlachs not formed tribes. East-Romance speaking peoples lived in medieval states, as Germanic- or Italic-speaking peoples. Germany, Italy, Romania as nations & states are constructions of the XIX century, and the modern form of German, Italian & Romanian languages, also.

But it didn't have the universal, massive, etc effect the nationalists claim

• The nationalists (romanians, moldovans, russians or hungarians) have their POV. I'm not one of them. I'm not against the Moldovan identity. To be "against" it, is to be against a part of the reality.

...especially not in Bessarabia, which was excluded from the creation of the Romanian nation due to it being a rural uneducated Russian province at the time.

• The Russian belong of Bassarabia, as the Austrian belong of Bucovina or the Hungarian belong of Transylvania, were not in incompatible with the romanian cultural developpement. The reality that you describe, are the same in Transylvania, Valachia and West-Moldavia (except the fact that this rural uneducated provinces were not soviet after 1945). If today Moldova is not Switzerland or Canada, where French, German, Italian & English cultural & linguistic identities are compatible with the Swiss or Canadian citizenship, if today Modova's authorithies support the local identity AGAINST the romanian identity (and ONLY against THIS identity), this is not an effect of the russian past of Moldova, but an effect of the soviet past. Vladimir Voronin himself said it: "We cannot delete the soviet past, it is an entire world for us".
  • Again, a misunderstanding here: "Russian Bessarabia" not as in "populated by ethnic Russians" (which it wasn't until Soviet times), but as "part of the Russian Empire" - whose local authorities (correctly) saw the rise of a Romanian national idea among Bessarabian Moldovans as an irredentist threat and blocked its promotion. Once the Romanian state was established, this national idea could be propagated on a state level, ensuring that the population is indoctrinated within several generations. This did not happen in Bessarabia until 1919 (it only took hold among the educated elite), and had largely failed in 1920-1940, due to lack of an effective delivery system - mass education. --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan and Romanian are not different languages. My understanding of the position of the Moldovan government is that "their" language should be called Moldovan because it "came before Romanian", not because it's a different language. That is, Romanian, according to them is a western dialect of Moldovan, which is the "mother tongue" of the whole group, and not vice versa.

• I'm against it, because it is NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC to accept a political diktat in Science. The name of the language today called "Romanian" & "Moldovan" (why not ?) is DACO-ROMAN for the linguists. The modern form of the Daco-Roman is the same one in Moldova and Romania. And the ancient forms of it, spoken in Transylvania, Valachia, the former Principality of Moldova (entire) & Dobruja, and written not in russian cyrillic, but in old greek-slavonic cyrillic, were called "Rumâniaska" by the own speakers : it means (in this times) not "Romanian" but "from Rome", and this Rome is not the first one (Rome in Italy) but the second one (Romania: our "Byzantine Empire"). Miron Costin, Grigore Ureche, Dimitri Cantemir wrote this, not me. So, the "Moldovan" is not coming before Romanian, but the former "Rumâniaska" (Abstand language) preceded the modern Daco-Roman called "Romanian" & "Moldovan" (Ausbau language). This is the historical reality, different of the nationalist POV from Romania or Moldova. I have not today the exact sources about this, because I have no more entrance in the libraries of the universities were I was student (Sorbonne-Paris I, Institut national des langues et des Civilisations orientales-Paris III), but I certify to you: this sources exists.
  • The Old Church Slavonic alphabet was used, yes. It was also the predecessor of the Russian Cyrillic. I understand, there's a debate on how things were called several centuries in the past, and since it's not really my field of expertise, I prefer to avoid it. --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan citizens are not automatically ethnic Moldovans. According to the last census, there was something like 98% of the former and only 75% of the latter in Moldova. Citizenship is something that is enforced by the state (fact). Ethnicity, on the other hand, is a matter of cultural affiliation (my opinion).

• The confusion between ethnicity & citizenship is also from the soviet model (who takes the german model of the "Blood right"). In the modern international right, ethnicity (a matter of cultural affiliation, yes) must be different from the citizenship, and you can be Moldovan by citizenship AND Russian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian by ethnicity, like you can be Swiss by citizenship AND German, French or Italian by ethicity.
  • This was in response to "why the Moldovan citizens cannot be equally Moldovans" - if by the second "Moldovans" you meant "ethnic Moldovans", then they are, if they consider themselves to be such. --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the russian- and ukrainian-speaking Moldovans can use freely russian or ukrainian language and enjoy the russian or ukrainian culture and history, why the latin-speaking Moldovans cannot use freely romanian language and enjoy the romanian culture and history, if some of they want it ?

This I can't understand. Why can't they?

• May be because it is forbidden by the Constitution ? This is a purely political thing...
  • Where exactly does the Constitution of Moldova forbid people to freely use any language they desire or enjoy any kind of culture and history? AFAIK, it explicitly permits this as a basic right of all Moldovan citizens. Perhaps you're referring to the MSSR of the 1940s, where cultural influence that was identified as "hostile to the state" was indeed suppressed? --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan government doesn't welcome any movement whose goal is to turn it from a sovereign government into a provincial one. Illythr (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I understand perfectly it, but the political weapons used by the Moldovan govt are wrong, and wounded not the romanian nationalism, but Science, and cultural freedom. The right way is to claim strong the unalienable right of the peoples from Moldova to be an independent state, in a total Равенство/Egalitate, but without Soviet distortions of history and cultural areas.

Спасибо for your attention, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I suspect this is a problem of nationalism in Moldova - one of the major reasons to split off from the Soviet Union was the idea of a distinct national (Romanian) identity. Once it was used as leverage to break free, however, Moldova's leaders saw no point in ceasing to be the vassals of one state just to become vassals of another (which was also much worse off than Moldova at the time). But embracing the internationalist ideas the way breakaway Transnistrian authorities did - like granting the Russian, Gagauz and Ukrainian languages equal rights with Moldovan/Romanian - kinda defeated the whole point of leaving the USSR in the first place. So, as a justification for the country's existence, another national idea was adopted - the one of a distinct Moldovan identity. --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Further observations

I have to observe regarding "Vladimir Voronin himself said it: 'We cannot delete the soviet past, it is an entire world for us'" that whether or not to "delete" an externally imposed past is a choice. Voronin is declaring he has made that choice unilaterally for the entire Moldovan nation.

   And one's ethnic heritage is determined by custom, culture, and language. "Moldovan" only originated as a "language" during the Soviet occupation/annexation of Bessarabia. One cannot "create" an ethnic group. "Ethnicity" is a relatively new word which people contend means "ethnic group" but it does not. If someone of ethnic group "A" wishes to not be associated with geopolitical identity also named "A", one does not take one's geopolitical identity named "B" and contend it is now ethnic group "B". —PētersV (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a past (sic!) would be the stupidest thing ever. How would they delete it? Should the brain of millions of people who lived during that period be washed? Or maybe they should burn everything built during that period and then engage in mass suicide?

The Moldovan language is mentioned continuously since the 17th century, by Moldovan scholars and others. Unless the Soviets did have the time machine, I can't understand how could they originate it. One cannot create an ethnic group, but thousand of people can. Most of the present ethnic group were invented after the Rennaisance (in eastern Europe in the 19th century). If they were not created, where were they before? They came from outer space or something? Those martians... I always knew they invaded Earth, now we have the proof.Xasha (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you mis-wrote, Peters? Deleting one's own past - that is, pretending that it "never happened", as you can't really change you own past - is a sign of immaturity. If this happens on a national level - this is very dangerous indeed, first of all to the nation (or, rather, its leadership) that does so.

Eh, Ethnicity is a redirect to Ethnic group, where both terms are used interchangeably. Can you explain the difference here? --Illythr (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Xasha, Russian (Нистор, Ӡасчук) and many other scholars mentioned continuously since the 14th century the Volokh/Vallachian language in Transylvania, Valachia and Moldova. It was, upon this times, the same one: the "abstand daco-Roman language", so defined by all linguists, included the Russian ans Soviet linguists. "Moldovan-", "Muntean" or "Transylvan-" languages are local names of this "abstand daco-Roman language", no different languages. One more time again, to define the past with references from the present, is an anachronism. The Ukrainian nationalists do this: because Kiev is in Ukraine, because the Kievan Rus' preceded the Moscovan Russia and the Russian Empire, because the word "Ruthen" (and the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, called "Ruthenia") are older than the Russian Empire, they said: "Ukrainian language and civilisation preceded the Russian language and civilisation". Sincerely, under communism this strange way in philology (as Lyssenko's way in genetics) are understandable, because we hadn't no choice. But today ?--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, AFAIK, this new "the first human was an Ukrainian" idea is a post-communist development, and a result of a similar attempt at creating a unifying national idea in Ukraine. Modern Moldovan point seems to be that this Daco-Roman language was continuously called "Moldovan" in Moldavia, and that is its proper name, whereas "Romanian" is a more recent invention, essentially an attempt to define the past with references from the present, as you say. --Illythr (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Roots of the Moldovan controversy

Да, you're right: lacking democratic references, they take this old stalinist idea... in Transnistria also : the unique difference with the rest of Moldova is the using of the russian cyrillic alphabet for the Daco-Roman language. With democratic references, Moldova can justify its existence as a multinational state (as Switzerland), a country with Russians, Ukrainians, Romanians etc, all equally Moldovans. May be in another future, with patriotism but without nationalism (nether Romanian, nether Great-Russian, Nether Soviet or Post-Soviet, nether Moldovan). It's a long way to it. It's as difficult as the "Human and democratic socialism" of Alexander Dubcek, the last chance to save socialism... Too bad... Пока, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is what the Soviet Union was (in this aspect) in the first place (except that Russians, Ukrainians, Romanians etc all were "equally" Soviet), so reversing the "Moldovan ethnic" idea back to the way it was in the MSSR defeats the whole point of Moldova's independence. Despite this, the "Communist" government actually did conduct a clumsy attempt at doing something like this by trying to grant Russian equal status with Moldovan, a move which was promptly blocked by the nationalists. Right now, the country pretty much lacks a unifying idea, which is part of its many problems (although I personally don't see it as central to Moldova's woes as you appear to - my bets rest with widespread corruption in all governmental levels). --Illythr (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Chernivtsi map

Hello, Can you tell me in what programme have you done the map EthnicChernivtsi 2001UkrCensus.png, especially how have you done the circuses. Thank you very much Best wishes,Colinspancev (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did it.BTW, since for the background I used a map released under GFDL, I'm not sure we're allowed to release it in the public domin. Xasha (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I also used MS Excel to transform population figures into degrees and Inkscape to get the adequate angles and circle radia.Xasha (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

kthx. --Illythr (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the Moldovan language

Hi. First of all thanks for helping us. I can see you're making an honest effort to sort things out.

I wanted to give you some idea of how distinct the "Moldovan language" is. For that, I will indulge myself in a bit of original research. I would say that the Moldavian speech within the Romanian language is just about as distinct as the Texan accent within the American English. That includes a particular phonology, a particular vocabulary, a particular attitude towards speakers, and yes, there are people talking about a "Texan language", including George W. Bush. (What? He's not a linguist? Oh...)

So Moldavian is recognizably different from other Romanian speeches. But, if I may use a Texan proverb, just because a chicken has wings doesn't mean it can fly.

Gotta get goin', I'm tuckered out. (That's Texan for you.) — AdiJapan 07:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Told ya - it's politics! --Illythr (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bessarabia 1940

If you want to expand that article (based maybe on a GA in another language) you should begin by renaming it to a title more common in English language published sources than the current one.Xasha (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And open that wicked can of worms again? I can guarantee that the name will be steadily reverted back to one containing "occupation". From my experience with the term, it was expanded from the original meaning into a politically loaded label used to show the world that the particular territorial change was "bad", as opposed to "neutral" ones where neutral wording like "passed to," "became part of" is used.

On the other hand, the events of 28 June - 4 July were objectively an occupation - a takeover by a foreign military force, which arguably lasted until 1947 or so - the peace treaty and the establishment of a civil government, so that part is more or less acceptable, as long as the scope of the occupation itself is clearly defined. Some of the article, dealing with the long term consequesces, can probably be moved to MSSR, some balancing might be in order, perhaps some merger of the ru and en contents (both are kinda totally opposite right now), but otherwise it's not as bad as it originally was. --Illythr (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the occupation stopped when civil administration was established (that would be sometimes not after Aug 2, 1940). And, technically, after Barbarossa began, the Allies considered the 1940 agreement valid, so considered Bessarabia part of the Soviet Union under Axis occupation (those who didn't before, cause US and SU never recognized the territorial changes of 1918). Anyway, I don't think that article will ever be near NPOV (see latest edits), that's why I never touched it.Xasha (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: The subdivisions of Imperial Bessarabia were called "Цынут" (in Moldovan, just as were called for centuries before; sometimes in Russian too) or "уезд" (in Russian; the Slavic term used in the Middle ages for these divisions, "volost", had a somewhat different meaning in Russian) (see the 1818 Charter here), and the proper translation into English is "district", as proved by contemporaneous Britannica 1911 here. Attempts to use modern Romanian terms is just anachronistic nationalism.Xasha (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Your message to DC76 is factual incorrect: Marius has been using checkuser requests en masse against his opposition for quite a while until one of them turned out to be "live" in 1.4.2007. I've used checkuser request not "en masse" (I didn't use against you, for example, as I remember) and at least two sockpuppeteers (MarkStreet and Mauco) were found. First of them - MarkStreet, was found well before 1.4.2007. Sockpuppetry was (and is) a real problem at Wikipedia. I wonder why are you still suffering for the fact that those sockpuppeteers were caught? One and a half year was not enough to heal the wounds?--MariusM (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, still around? ;-) And still didn't lose the habit of presenting personal assumptions as fact? Aww.

En masse - you used CU against pretty much everyone else who disagreed with you. Mark Street - ah, I forgot about him, will tweak. Still, Dc76 seems to think that it was that list of yours that authorized a check on Mauco, whereas it was vice versa. --Illythr (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I answered in my talk. Ok, I might have forgotten now all the details. What I mean to say is that it was that list of Marius that made the ArbCom aware of the problem and eventually the issue was solved. Through checkuser, or complementary to checkuser, here I am not sure, and indeed I might be wrong, for which I apologize.

To people other than Illythr and Marius who read this: the problem between these two is that one of them thinks being Soviet as normal, like being American or being Russian, the other thinks that being Soviet is support of extremist ideology, like being Nazi or being Communist. While "Soviet" is indeed the name of a very oppressive, very bloody regime, one should also remember that that regime has thought millions to identify themselves with it, and the democratic world did little to prevent this ideology keep the masses fed up. There were people in the former Soviet Union who out of personal circumstances (that have nothing to do with politics) did not think of themselves as neither Russians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Moldavians/Romanians, Armenians, etc, but as Soviet. Some of them were even anti-Communist and had problems with the KGB, yet still because of education thought to the last that Soviet was not a negative word. You see Nazis made Germany Nazi, but the country was still called Germany not Nazi Union. While with the USSR, Russia was only one of the 15 republics, albeit itself having 75% of territory and 60% of population. The country was called Soviet, the same adjective as the name of the bloody regime. Dc76\^talk 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the problem, but oh well. There are things it's often best to agree to disagree on. PS Soviet is like being American, but not like being Russian. A kind of supra-national (read "-ethnic") consciousness. --Illythr (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, exactly. only now I realize the obvious fact that "American" does not carry an ethnic connotation. So, i was right to assume you understand the word "Soviet" with same weight as the word "American". But then you would also agree that American does not carry any ideological, class war, or other meaning, would you not? American was never imposed as opposite to, say, French Canadian, while Soviet was imposed as anti-national term to all 14 "other" republics. Power to the Soviets means not to give power to democratically elected parliament and local councils, but to some selected body, where participation was determined on bases of social class of one's grandfather, membership in Communist Party and knowledge of the Russian language. Power to Americans means to give power to every American citizen regardless of social class of the grandfather, memebership in any party and even knowledge of English (recall those recurrent Spanish alternatives when you call most 1-800s, or even when you vote (e.g. Florida), etc). And not to say democratic elections. Pretty big difference, don't you think? If Soviet would mean as much, everybody would be Soviet now :) ~

BTW, I intentionally misordered you and Marius, so as a reader would understand that it is not about who, but about what, and that both those what are legitimate in their own context.Dc76\^talk

Ahh, that naive idealism again... :-) Mmm, there's a nice song by Rammstein about that.

To BTW: in a word - confusing. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:):):):) It is always so much fun to talk with you. We start from one conflicting edit and after 2 hours end with a plentiful of laughs. :):) Yes, that idiealism again. (thanks for corrrections, that also again :) )

Ich kenne Schritte, die sehr nützen,

und werde euch vor Fehltritt schützen,

und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss,

weiß noch nicht, dass er tanzen muss!

Wir bilden einen lieben Reigen,

ich werde Euch die Richtung zeigen,

nach Afrika kommt Santa Claus,

und vor Paris steht Mickey Maus.

I just downloaded it. The music is not very attractive, though. But typical German rock. :) And typical German anti-Americanism. :) Dc76\^talk 00:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Thank you. I have Mozilla at work, and when I edit WP it underlines the words that are not in the dictionary, but it does not give me options to choose from (so if I don't recall the exact spelling I have to keep trying to change a letter or two until it is recognized). But at home (from where I recently do most of the edits) I use IE7, which does not have this feature, and I am spelling-blind. I was thinking maybe you use some interface to help edit WP on a what-you-write-is-what-you-see basis, which would also have a check-spelling implemented. I am tired of having to continuously hit "Show preview" and re-read from start (especially in texts with massive wikification). Maybe such an interface does not even exist yet. What I found on WP were features that help admins do deletes, rollbacks, etc. But I don't need that. Deletes are my nightmare, 10% of what I delete I vitally need later... Dc76\^talk 23:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The default I have on Mozilla is English. As for pop-ups, thank you very much! I did not install anything. Will tend to it when I'll have more time. Really, thank you, you are very nice. Dc76\^talk 21:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Localities in Moldova

I can not verify, least vouch for the contnets of List of localities in Moldova, hence I have no idea what names are taken and what not. I took a different approach: in january i started to make templates for each district. In parallel, I will also organize the categories for localities. When all these will be done, it will be a matter of 2 hours to reformat the List. Duplicate names, I deal with them on case by case bases, as I go: on average there are 2 duplicate names per district template. Given the accumulative effect, this could grow a bit. Dc76\^talk 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it was just odd to click on a place in the RM and get a village in Romania in a totally different district. --Illythr (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is ca. 100 other such repeating names M-R. That's why I am doing it slowly, so that I don't miss. Dc76\^talk 22:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll leave it to you. I'm too lazy for that type of Wikignome work. --Illythr (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No-no-no, you won't get away so easy! :) I am arranging now in proper cats the localities found in the tree Category:Moldova. The extant ones only. After that I will re-start creating new templates. I needs you to occasionally:

• Somehow scan WP for articles related to Moldova and put them into some category. Don't put them way too low. If you put them too high, that's not a problem, I've alrady mastered the rutine of sweeping a cat and moving appropriate stuff into its subcats. But I have not mastered yet the opposite rutine. But, of course, if you figure out which specific cat, go directly to it. I put in Portal:Moldova the category tree.
• Once a district template is created, it would be nice if someone would go one by one through all blue localities, and add the proper category Category:Communes in X district or Category:Cities in Moldova.
• If you do want, you can also create district templates. But then you should right away check everything that pops-up blue for the phenomenon that you mantioned. In such cases, don't just add ", Moldova" to its title and live it red, but actually create that article, and add it to the disambig page of that name (create a disambig page if necessary). If you don't edits the disambig page right away, it will be a problem latter. We would have to scrol evertything. A solvable problem, of course, but ... we can take care of it right away. This is why the pace of one district template per day is excellent.

thank you for volonteering. :) good luck Dc76\^talk 00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh... O:-)

BTW, the category divergence between Transnistrian and Moldovan topics needs to be solved (to aavoid double stubs and multiple cat entries). This can either be easily done via adding all Transnistria topics into the Transnistria cat (which is already a subcat of Moldova), or, a prettier solution, painstakingly put the individual Tr subcats into their Md couterparts (this will include creating new cats like "Transnistria-geo-stub" and the like)... --Illythr (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I started the second approach route, that is "painstakingly put the individual Tr subcats into their Md couterparts" b/c I think one should e.g. find all churches in Moldova in a single category (or its subcats). So, just putting Cat:T in Cat:M won't have this effect. Anyway, I am only at the start of the road. But I browsed more through T cats, since they are smaller, and this helps me have an idea of what to expect about M cats. As for "stub"-ing :) articles, I did not yet arrive at assessing articles, that's way too far in the future. If you want to take care of cats related to the quality of articles, please, by all means! :) Otherwise, perhaps Serhio is the only preson who can actually complete that. Pesoanlly I don't like ""Transnistria-geo-stub", because that requests "Chisinau-geo-stub", "Cricova-geo-stub" (there are a lot of corners there, i hear) and so on. I'd rather use only "Transnistria-stub" for political articles. The latter is already last minute thought. Dc76\^talk 00:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

History of the Moldovan language merge

Based on the discussion in this article's talk page, I made a proposal [7] and gave its rationale [8]. You are receiving this standard message because during the last 12 months you have editted either this article or its talk page, or both. Dc76\^talk 00:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over national identity in Moldova

BTW, this edit is absolutely correct, imho. I should have tagged them myself. Thank you. Dc76\^talk 19:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW to BTW. the examples you gave about colour of the "sky" and spin velocity are excellent: you draw the precise mark between claims A that need citations and claims B that do not need: claims A are very likely to arrise curriosity when read by an intelligent non-specialist, while claims B do not normally rise any curiosity. The 2 examples you are giving are excellent: a normal person would want to follow a link to read more. Ditto the two things you tagged: a normal person would want to read more. Examples of claims B on the other hand are: Americans speak English language, Moldovans speak Romanian language, Austrians speak German language, Bush was president from 2001 till 2009, these statements do not arrise curiosity in normal people, this is only information. Dc76\^talk 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems arise when one is linked to another just like that: Bush was is president from 2001 because Moldovans speak Romanian. Or, for a seemingly even more silly example, modern space exploration is hindered by the width of horses' arses in Ancient Rome.

But what's this? A source?

Causality is a point you made and I totally agree with it. I will not mind at all if you do more edits. As for space exploration and horses, imh and bold oppinion :) "modern space exploration is hindered using units and gauges modelled after by the width of horses' asses in Ancient Rome" :) Yes i knew that example, but it is very good example indeed. Dc76\^talk 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note * If you ever feel the need to edit me over and over again and if you worry that an outsider might think it is a case of edit warring or some escalation, I would like you to point that outsider to this message of mine:

Illythr and me have a habit of editing articles related to history and politics of Moldova. Sometimes we approach edits on an article X from opposing viewpoints and perform successive edits that tend to narrow the problems to just 1-2 words. To a superficial outsider this might seem like an edit war, while we are very friendly to each other when doing this, and are actually enjoying the process. It is a habit of ours that has emerged ad hoc, but then developed and chiselled over a long period of time. It is very effective to us in editing those articles. Hence, if Illythr has done what might seem to you as one too many edit on article X, please check if I edited that article on close days, too. If I did, do not even think about warning him: I need his edits to understand better the issues, so that together we can improve the articles. If only me and him are editing article X, he should be allowed to do as many edits and reverts as he would deem necessary. 3RR and stuff like that do not apply (because I said so :) ). Dc76\^talk 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, something tells me admins won't agree with you there. ;-)

BTW, I hear, whenever we change the articles' contents, even if it's a teensy tiny typo fix, God kills a kitten the entire article is replicated as a full text copy in the wiki database... --Illythr (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• They will if on a given article 80-90% of edits are your+mine. B/c there is consensus among the involved editors. (That of course if you won't take a stand against yourself :) ) Dc76\^talk 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, I wondered how do they do the diffs at WP, how do they store them. Granted there are more efficient ways to do that. But then, when requesting a diff, the computer at WP would have to execute something and take some valuable processor time. Given that WP has about 50,000 page request per second, and I am guessing 5-10% of them are diff requests, that's quite a lot... Hey, how do they do with lengthy talk pages? Do they record 500 KB ever and ever again every time one more editor comments? That's like making hundreds of copies of blog/forum ! ... wait a sec, do you mean to say that WP needs 1GB more memory every few seconds? Wow! Dc76\^talk 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, check this out! :-) --Illythr (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Well, there IS a $ 6 million support call banner on top of every page... Here's the corresponding man page. And here's also something to meditate on. --Illythr (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

He is back

He is back [9]. Can you please revert back to your version. But as you can see it seems like he doesn't understand and doesn't want to talk in a constructive way. Instead he is throwing around threats and rude words. Anyway I'm continuing researching the battle of Grengam and have found several other Swedish sources that claim 43 or many destroyed Russian galleys. The oldest source is Gunnar Unger's "Illustrated Swedish Naval History" from 1909 [10]. He also gives a little of a background, that Carl Georg Siöblad had clear defensive orders. The four frigates are there named "Stora Phaenix", "Vainqueur" "Danska Örn" and "Kiskin". Siöblad's ship is named "Pommern". And also the very recent "Svensk Biografiskt Lexikon" from 2006 says that Siöblad's court martial was held in 1724 and the verdict was loss of six months salary. So the court records from 1724 seems to be a very interesting document to read. And I still wonder where Veselago got his sources from. It's strange that a Russian naval officer would exaggerate the Russian losses like that if he didn't have any sources for it. Närking (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unable to edit these few days. I tried to add more sources to make it clear that the 9000 figure is almost certainly an imperial Russian estimate that the Encyclopedia of Ukraine draws upon.

On the Swedish source - hey, is it possible to extract the images of the sailing ships from it? 1909 seems like PD-old, no? Might be a good idea to add Siöblad's orders somewhere, too. Does this book say anything about reinforcements ho was supposed to receive? There seem to be 19 Swedish ships on that pic...

About Veselago - no idea, and he was a naval officer, to boot. --Illythr (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bessarabia Governorate

According to Ion Nistor, from 1812 till 1818 there 12 ţinuturi, then the Bakhmetiev/Alexander Aşezământ in 1818 merges them into 6, just as this says: "Цынутов или уездов определяется шесть, а именно: Хотинский, Ясский, Оргеевский, Бендерский, Аккерманский и Измаильский. Цынутные Присутственные места имеют состоять в городах: Хотине, Бельцах, Кишеневе, Бендерах, Аккермане и Измаиле." After 1878 maps and references clearly say 8, with the 9th Cahul used occasioanlly (but the latter not on maps), so I presume there were 9 but then 8 and some people did not get used to it. Which is consistent to changes 6 to 9, then minus 2, then plus the two but as one. I don't know which years these happened exactly. I suspect 6 to 9 happened in 1828 with the Vorontsov/Nikolai Regulament, which also changed "oblast" into "gubernia", but I do not have a sourse for that. All Romanian sources mention 3 (Ismail, Cahul and Bolgrad as being returned to Moldavia, but their language is such that it only results that they were 3 in Moldavia, not necessarily also in the Bessarabia Governorate.)

Now about the 1818 Act, as you can see it granted Bessarabia rights not too far from those of Finland or Poland. If that act would have stayed in force throughout, and not only 10 years, and be respected, we wouldn't have had so many problems and animosity later. As you can clearly see, there were rational, moderate and progressive people in Russia, also generally very educated, like Chichagov, Alexander, etc. And then there were nationalist conservatives, also not seldome half-litarat, such as Vorontsov, Nikolai, Pavel Lebedev, or the League of True Russians. The latter had the power. Alexander's hopes were doomed from the start, just as Gorbachov's were. Although it is clear that such people as Alexander and Gorbachov were absolutely sincere and did not want to assimilate non-Russians, they could not have support in a country were in the end the retrograds always rule and the best people in the end are always persecuted. Perhaps this is also why Russia has given so many excellent people in science and art: they could not go to politics or administration, so their tallent showed elsewhere. Dc76\^talk 00:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)