User talk:Biruitorul

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3

A star for you

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

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

Yay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK

On 28 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Franklin Place, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

«Panoramic» image

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

what is this comment supposed to mean?

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

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

Roger Federer records page

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

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

Juan Carlos

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

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

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

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

ABP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:LOTD

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

Samuel Cony

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

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

Cristero War - Mexican Revolution

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu

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

Ratgeb

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

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

Socialist realism in Romania

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accident in Saint-Paul

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

Semantron

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

On 21 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Semantron, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Merry Christmas

Darwinek wishes you a Merry Christmas!

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

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

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

DYK

On 23 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Accident on the Saint-Paul ramps, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Crăciun fericit

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

Merry Christmas

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

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

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

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

CIA related articles

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

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

AFDs

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

Ktitor

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski

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

2006 Ferentari riot

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Day (printer)

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

Ooh, boy...

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

Reply

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

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

Ah...

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

I share your feelings about the whole shabang, but I will add that both sides in that conflict, as usual in anything on that scale involving Romanian articles, have moved outside the realm of logic and common sense. this is why I chose not to waste my time trying to see what they're on about at the moment. The sample text you linked is indeed weird, and, yes, it does not seem like those guys have thought it through or compared it with other cases. While, yes, many people still use "Rumania" and "Roumania", I cannot see this as material for the lead. It is equally odd that this is not mentioned in the somewhere in the text. But then, the perfect solution was just in front of our eyes: I'll call it the Rakovsky solution! (Not entirely out of my head: there is a specification somewhere that, if there are alternate names or there is something to say about alternate names, editors are to consider starting a special section.)

I also avoided commenting on the Iaşi-Chişinău article - for one, it's one of those "a rose by any other name" things, and, quite simply, both possibilities looked equally convincing for me. It's also that discussions like this tend to attract the usual crew on both sides, and rarely see the end of them. But, yes indeed, those comments were an outrage, and that guy was seriously out of line. The stupidest part of this pretense national gang war is that, for each guy who accuses editors of x nation form a gang there is a guy in that x nation who demands from his compatriots to form a gang (or acts as if they already form one).

The Ploieşti article is now as appealing as a latrine. I remember I saw it being hijacked a while back, I saw Turgidson trying to get in the way and giving up, and I kept wanting to fix at least part of it just before it suffered even more casualties (needless to say, the diacritics thing didn't help at all...). Eh, eventually... Dahn (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of issues concerning Eliade. Entirely by accident, I bumped into a source that discussed his marital status and the other details you brought up on the talk page - if you still want to add from your source (provided it was not the same source), I can't see any problem with it, but there is, of course, no more "sense of urgency". However, other issues have popped up or moved to the forefront. For starters, was he actually an American citizen? With the characteristic dose of confidence, in what is a characteristically ridiculous article on Eliade, rowiki says that he was "naturalized an American citizen [sic! for the tautology] in 1966". Fine, I take that for granted, and ask myself what source they used. So far, I see that the Anglo-Saxon world seems to have no recollection of that fact, whereas the Romanian-speaking world flows over with sites of the forum and blog level who repeat verbatim the claim made by rowiki (or the other way, or whichever). Do you think it possible that we actually find a credible source discussing this aspect, either backing up or refuting the rowiki claim? Another question I would like to see answered eventually is what did he actually die of?

In case you are interested, it would be a major boost for the article if you were to have access to another source discussing Eliade's fiction works - George Călinescu is rather dated and dismissive, while the only other readily available source I found is indeed valuable, but short and vague. Something that would actually explain what the stories are about and trace connections between them would be marvelous. Dahn (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Dahn (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Waaay ahead of you :). But how on Earth did I miss those two, Biru? It's only now that I notice them (I probably lost them in the backlog). They're excellent ideas, and, yes, by all means, let's have them in. (On the PCR one, a note might be in order for the pre-1945 troika, but it's not an absolutely necessary addition.) Dahn (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall happily delegate that honor to the creator of the templates. Again: great stuff! On a partly related topic: do you have the feeling that I, you, Turgidson and perhaps Bogdan are turning into the Romanian-side-of-the-English-wiki's Humphrey Applebies? :D Dahn (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? As I said, I think that "warning" was unwarranted, but did it actually carry any consequences? O do you mean to say he does not want to edit anymore? I certainly hope not! (I'm about to log off now, but I'll be back later in the day - I apologize in advance for the possible delay in replying.) Dahn (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's awful news! Is there any chance he would reconsider the decision? Dahn (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Forget Appleby, this is Tammany Hall! :D You can count on my support, and I'm looking forward to the vote. Dahn (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You can count on my support too (I don't know how much is worth though considering that I don't have a good reputation -- and not plan to build one ;) AdrianTM (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Help! Dahn (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tout en gardant la foi, I have to say I'm looking forward to seeing an end to this wikibreak of yours :). It's got more boring around here. I just want to let you know that I might not be very active between mid and late March, when I'm off on a trip - I'm not sure that I'll have reasonable internet access there. If you want my vote (I hope you do, even though I'm sure you'll have no problems winning with or without it), you might consider scheduling running in early March or early April. I was going to tell you about this later, but I saw the message on KL's page. Dahn (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Complicated stuff. For starters, I think such an article should rely on something other (or at least something more) than a blog page, which is currently the only reference it has. But yes, that is a good solution to several of our traditional problems. However, as I mentioned before, it would be a gruesome task to make sense of the pre-1945 situation. Aside from the lack of complete info in one place, you would not believe how much sources diverge on who was what and where - especially for the years when the PCR was supposedly several parties (one in Moscow, one in Doftana, and one in Bessarabia). The thing that is hardest to figure out is why those lists differ, and if authors really contradict each other. Throw in "revolutionary legality" (i.e. the communists not really caring who was what), and you have the basic ingredients for a mess. Dahn (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael the Brave

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

Hi

I don't intend to move it back to the wrong orthography. The ș and ț are supported on all operating systems which have Unicode support — those that don't should probably not be editting Wikipedia. If you would like to open up a larger RFC on ș and ț versus the other forms I would be more than willing to cast my opinion there. Dahn appears to have done a copy/paste move to restore the Ploiești article which is in violation of the GPL. I've rectified the situation as you requested. - Francis Tyers · 07:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

St. Elizabeth's Church, Wiesbaden

On 23 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Elizabeth's Church, Wiesbaden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's gold, I tell ye!

I spoke you speak better German than I do, because I found a lovely source for us to use: see pages 79-98 here (I guess the yellow will also point out who my next article is gonna be about...). Dahn (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't actually connected the DYK with the question (a really cool one, btw!) I was asking - though now it seems that I could have. Don't worry, I won't hold that against you :). Machine is what I do too (more or less - I actually pick it up word by word from dictionaries and see where that gets me; I have to say it was much easier with Catalan...). Here's what I was thinking: there is this magical button on our keyboard that can help us store the text and bypass the, well, changes that may occur in viewing ;). I'm thinking of using it and then try a bit-by-bit approach to translation. The important thing is that it so very complete and so well-structured for what we need, and that we should get "a hold" of it to cover the gaps. Once I'm done with other things, I'll see about that, and you might consider doing the same. That way, we can work it whenever we can give it our undivided attention. Dahn (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my request for adminship, which passed today with 42/0/0! I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask! Thanks again, —dima/talk/ 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Translations and references

Hello,

You really do a great job in translating the articles I (mostly) wrote. I added two references on the Morea exped, still looking for the last one. I'll read History of the Cyclades after a good night sleep. It's not yet finished : roman and byzantine periods are still a little short : big reference problem : my university library is relatively poor and byzantine period is one of the subjects of the competitive exam to recruit teachers (Agregation) this year, so the other libraries wont lend their books.

If you are looking for "neutral" featured articles to translate, you should try fr:Siège de Tripolizza compared to Fall of Tripolitsa or even better fr:Massacre de Psara compared to Destruction of Psara.

I think I should some day try to pay you back and translate one of your best articles. Got anything real good and neutral about Alexander Ypsilantis (1792-1828) war in Moldavia and Wallachia ?

Thanks again, Cedric B. (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Idem

I'd like to thank you for this translation. Thierry Caro (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 29 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cyclades, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- well done Victuallers (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On 2 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Âme de la France, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nice article, by the way! Lovely pictures and lots of interesting information. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Romanian calendar

Since you are the creator of and most prolific contributor to Romanian calendar, please help out here. — AjaxSmack 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brassovia.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brassovia.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Barthélemy Boganda

Excellent work a few months ago with Barthélemy Boganda. I found the subject quite compelling, and I'm considering bringing it to FA status. Since this is the first time I've actually heard about this guy, could you tell me if article is "complete"? Do you think it can be significantly expanded? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll start looking into the images, and I'll be working on the article, copyediting, expanding and referencing, when appropriate. I picked up two of the book references used (Dark Age and Historical Dictionary) from my uni library. It appears Pierre Kalck, the author of Historical Dictionary of the Central African Republic also wrote a biography on Boganda (Google Books). Unfortunately, I could not find it any of the area university libraries, and Google Books does not offer a preview of the book. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I knew I wrote down the wrong number, but I forgot to change it. Thanks for that! By the way, this should be at FAC in less than a week (hopefully). Nishkid64 (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:BrazilPresidentialElections

A tag has been placed on Template:BrazilPresidentialElections requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brassovia.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Moldova

I saw your edits on Warsaw pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. Now we have a comparison of it to ... [1] the intervention of Romanian troups in Moldova in 1918!  :Dc76\^talk 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion about renaming Tighina? (See the talk page of the article). If you don't have an opinion, don't feel obliged to answer. :Dc76\^talk 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Straw Poll

Hi, since you took part in the discussion about renaming this article, you may be interested in participating in a most evil poll to determine the public opinion on the naming issue. --Illythr (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

Illythr (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dc76\^talk 20:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (signatures are just copied the RfA page)

Greetings

In case you still don't know, we're about to crucify you. So please, be a nice guy and step onto the executioner's block, will ya? --Illythr (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:-) you've got a sense of humor, Illythr ! (i have to leave for the night, but I'll be back tomorrow, cheers, everyone):Dc76\^talk 20:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Aww, spoilsport! --Illythr (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is crucifying, then allow me to sign up before the rooster crows today. Dahn (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

SSRs versus not in templates

To your question, it should be standard procedure to not mix SSRs and their independent selves, particularly not for the Baltics. So, presidents and first secretaries don't mix, ministers, heads of parliaments, etc. —PētersV (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, no mix! At the end of the day SSR versus independent is apples to oranges whether officials are called the same or something different. —PētersV (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

UAR Building / Casa Păucescu

I assume that you know the UAR Building in Bucharest (formerly Casa Păucescu, right on Piaţa Revoluţiei). I'm working on an article about it for Architectural Glass magazine. I've been trying (and failing) to find out who was the original architect of Casa Păucescu (1898, I believe) and what it was used for from 1914 until it became a Securitate building. Any ideas for leads? I wrote the UAR, but they seem not to be replying. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Moldova, Moldovan language

As I expected, the provocations of User:Xasha become clearer, and there is an involvement of User:El C and User:Mikkalai. There is also Bonny, but I'm concerned another edit war will start. Dpotop (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's Irpen, too. :) And I got a warning under the blanket "Eastern Europe" decision of the Digwuren case. From El_C, or course. Dpotop (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)