From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello Dpotop/Archive1, welcome to Wikipedia!

I occasionally get logged off, I don't know if it's possible to "keep logged in unless I log out" - someone else may be able to help on the desk you asked the question at, you can click the "watch" tab and check your "my watchlist" for changes.

Here are some tips you might find useful:

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf 12:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC).

HTML comments[edit]

I see that at Romania, you removed the HTML comment "Yes, this is Ţeara, not Ţara, it is quoting an old document". Is there a reason you removed it? Nearly always when there are comments like this in the text it is because there have been problems with people making ill-conceived "corrections". These are not visible to anyone but editors because they are in the HTML comments. I'm not going to get in a fight with you over this, but I think you are wrong to remove it. And I'll tell you that it is odds-on that by the end of the calendar year, someone else will "correct" the spelling, and if no one is attentive this will introduce an error into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:27, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the HTML comment. My bad (didn't know it was one). I'll put it back.

Romanian language[edit]

I removed the piece you moved from the talk page. In case you didn't notice, the texts are exactly the same. The source of the text is unknown and is added by a raging Romanian nationalist. the article clearly and quite oprominently says that the languages are nearly idential. Trying to "prove" that they are "exactly" the same is an attempt to push a point of view, which is while dominant, nevertheless is disputed. Just the same, I may cook a text that will differ 80% in both languages, but this example would not prove the opposite point either. mikka (t) 21:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

so called "Moldovan" language[edit]

Hi there, I have read your edits on the Moldovan_language page and what you said is very correct. I fully agree with you and you have my full support. Anyway we should watch that page and carefully bring arguments. As I saw the "moldovan" Node and Mikka are not willing to accept that is the same language, even it is a self-evidence thing. By the way you can let me anytime your message on my talk page. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Hi there. I will add soon an article on the talk page of Moldovan_language, let's be one voice. Bonaparte  talk & contribs
Please read my support of your actions on the talk page of Moldovan_language, nu suntem singuri. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Hi there. Please check this out Transnistria and also on the talk page, your help is needed!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Salut! I have to admit that you were great today and all these days. I like your style. Man! With you on my side and others nobody can stop us! Thankx for your support and I just want to assure you of my full consideration. By the way just look at the [[1]] you might discover something really nice about the "all-powerful entity made of pure energy" namely Mark Williamson also known as Node. Tot inainte! Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Moldovan language protection[edit]

No, we do not protect single sections. That's not possible. Besides, protection is a last resort. As I've stated on the talk page, if you guys have problems with Node, start the Dispute resolution process. That's what it's there for. If things aren't somewhat settled by Tuesday night, that's where you guys need to go. Protection isn't a permanent solution. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ronline for Admin[edit] and . I have nominated Ronline to be Administrator for English Wikipedia. Let's vote for him! Bonaparte  talk & contribs


Salut, Eu sunt la Supelec, si tocmai (de o luna) mi-am inceput teza in automatica. Abia am reusit si eu sa scap de agitatia de la inceput, asa ca sunt un fel de newbie. :D --Orioane 11:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your post[edit]

I replied on my talk page, to keep the conversation in one place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexander for Admin[edit] , . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A acceptat totusi. I might accept just to show you that I was right. Du-te si voteaza. Asa nu mai are dubii. A zis ca ii e frica sa nu piarda. Va castiga. Hai te rog.

-- Bonaparte talk & contribs 21:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Our forum[edit]

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

--Anittas 17:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Salut Dpotop. Scuză-mă cu nu ţi-am scris mai devreme; am fost destul de ocupat în ultimele zile. E-mailul meu este rowikipedia at Acolo putem vorbi în privat! Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Orioane's RfA[edit]


Hey Dpotop/Archive1! Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. To my amazement there were no negative or neutral votes and the result was (28/0/0). I am now an administrator so I'll try and do my best in this new position. I'll be happy to answer any comments or requests from you.

Înca odata mersi mult şi sper sa apucăm să comunicăm mai mult când voi fi un pic mai liber, Mihai -talk 20:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Romanians map[edit]

Dpotop, You wrote the following on my talk page:

Romanian origins

Hello Ryanaxp, Could I, please, have the source of the image: [3]

Thanks, Dpotop 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

However, it is unclear what you are seeking--do you want to have the .XCF file from The GIMP, in order to modify it and create a new version; or are you inquiring as to who created the image? If you are asking the second (i.e., you are asking where the image came from), it clearly states on the page the description page for the image that "(the image) was drawn by me, User:Ryanaxp, on July 31, 2005, and is hereby released into the public domain." --Ryanaxp 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

To create the map I began by looking at a map of the Mediterranean, Aegean and Black seas published by National Geographic, and placing waypoints using the GIMP and a Wacom tablet to create the silhouette of the coastlines. I then used the information gleaned from a previous, similar map that used to accompany the Origin of Romanians article (but which was subsequently deleted because its provenance and copyright status were unknown). It was my intention to create a roughly corresponding, hand-drawn map that set forth the essential information contained in the previous deleted map image, without potentially infringing copyright by being a slavish copy thereof. As to the origin of the data which informed the previous, deleted map, I am unaware of the sources used. --Ryanaxp 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: barnstar[edit]

Thanks. Hopefully, even in my absence, people may yet accept my framwork. I just figured that if that was rejected, I really didn't have anything else to bring to the process, since I am not particularly a subject matter expert. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

La Multi Ani![edit]

La Multi Ani! Fie ca 2006 sa-ti aduca sanatate, bucurii si bani! Bonaparte talk 16:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Paragraphs on undercounting[edit]

Верхній і Нижній Дунавці та Муругиль - ці три сусідні села є промовистою ілюстрацією цілком реальних для румунських українців перспектив. І, можна не сумніватися, перспектив для багато кого в Румунії дуже бажаних. Примар комуни Муругиль Андрей Аурел визнає, що 70 відсотків людей у цих трьох селах є українцями. Проте, за даними перепису, із близько 2,5 тисячі чоловік такими записалося всього 240.

Lower and Higher Dunavets' and Murugil - those three neighbouring villages are bright illustration of very real for Ukrainians Romanian perspectives. And no doubts, those perpective are wery welcome by some in Romania. Primar (kind of local major - my expl.) of Murugil community, Andrei Aurel recognises, that 70% of people in these three villages are Ukrainians. Despite, according to the census data, aout from 2,5 thousands of people only 240 are recorded as such.

На столі у пана примаря - портрет румунського президента Іона Ілієску. Президент хитро так посміхається... "Ви думаєте, українців під час перепису хтось питав, якої вони національності? - каже голова Тульчанської повітової організації СУР Марія Карабин. - До мене прийшов, усе ніби записав і вже йде, а я кажу: "Ви чому не питаєте, хто я за національністю?" Він: "А що мені питати, ви ж румунка". Ні, кажу, не румунка... Але я ж знала, що під час перепису вказують національність, а прості люди по селах - хто там що знає?"

Mr. primar has portret of Romanian president Ion Iliescu on his table. The president has a smart smile... "Do you think anybody asked Ukrainians what nationality they are? - says leader of Tulca provincial organisation of UUR (Union of Ucrainians of Romania), Maria Karabyn. - He (censor) came to me, recorded everything and is leaving, but I tell him: "Why you are not asking my nationality?" He: "Why to ask, you are Romanian". No, I say, not Romanian... But I knew that during census they must ask for nationality, and what about simple people in willages - do you think they know?"

Марія Карабин родом із села Караорман, розташованого в дунайському гирлі. Село повністю українське, лише не так давно там оселилася одна румунська сім'я. А за переписом вийшло - всі румуни. "Я була в Караормані у вересні, розпитувала людей, чи записували їхню національність. Ні, відповідають, ніхто нас про це не питав", - каже вона. І ще от як робили: українських дівчат посилали переписувати румунські села, а румунів відправляли в українські. Чи варто дивуватися, що за офіційними даними українців у Румунії - 61 тисяча, тоді як самі вони стверджують - приблизно вчетверо більше?

Maria Karabyn is native of Karaorman village, that is in Dunarea delta. The village is completely Ukrainian, only recently one Romanian family moved into here. But according to census - all of them Romanians. "I was in Karaorman in September, asked people if anybody recorded their nationality. No, they say, nobody asked us this", - she says. And they did also this way: Ukrainian girls were sent to be censors in Romanian villages, but Romanians to Ukrainian ones. So why to wonder that according to official census that there are 61 thouthand Ukrainians in Romania when thethemselves claim that there are approximately four times more?

Hi. It's from here. I will translate you the info ASAP. I noticed what languages you speak, but was thinking - may be yu hide something :) and thanks for remark on politics of Ceausescu. I was told by some Romanians that he did this way.--Bryndza 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is article from "Holos Ukrajiny" (The voice of Ukraine), 13-15 Nov. 2002. Edited by Parlament of Ukraine. Article is written in style of a travel notes by a journalist who traveled through Romanian territories adjacent to Ukrainian border. He started from Siget in Maramures and ended somewhere in Danube delta. On his way he recorded interwievs with different people. I hope my poor English will be more comprehensive than the original Ukrainian :) If you need exact Romanian names of the willages - I can find them for you on map.--Bryndza 03:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lipovans are not Ukrainians. They belong to Russians. They settled in Danube area after some cruel church reform was accepted in Russia in 1651. They are coming from northern part of Russia and follow old pre-reform traditions in Orthodox religon. Yes, the examples I translated are from Danube area too but they are not about Lipovans. Language of Lipovans (and religious believes) and Ukrainians from Danube Delta is very different.--Bryndza 14:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright law[edit]

Hello Cristian,

I've seen your note on the Romanian Noticeboard concerning "Dictionarul Enciclopedic Romin aparut la editura politica Bucuresti 1962-1967".

Are you a specialist in copyright law? If yes, I would like to know whether "Enciclopedia Romaniei" edited by D. Gusti in the late 1930s and beginning of 1940s is now in public domain. I have it, I have a scanner and OCR software, and I think that it contains loads of meaningful info. I just don't know whether it's OK to publish it. Sorry, I',m not a specialist in law. Still:

The law applied for this enciclopedia should be "Legea asupra proprietatii literare si artistice, din 28 iunie 1923"

One difference between the 1956 law and 1923(28.06.1923) law in that the right for heritage of the work is preseved during all his life and 30 years for their heirs, the 1956 law specified 50 years for heirs. With the exception of the enciclopedia authors and theirs heirs wich have the intelectual rights only 20 years.(see La articolul 6, privind transmiterea drepturilor prin mostenire, se prevede: "Sotul si ascendentii autorului beneficiaza de aceste drepturi tot timpul vietii lor; descendentii - timp de 50 de ani (fata de 30 de ani cât era prevazut în vechea lege) So from my point of view the enciclopedia intelectual right have expired either using the 1923 law or either the 1956 law.

I see no reson for not using this material since the copiright has seems to be expired, still the source shoud be mentioned. (like Britanica 1911) But remember I'm not an authorithy is my understanding of the law. CristianChirita

Yours,Dpotop 13:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

the law applied for enciclopedia was from 1923 to 1956: "D nr. 3165 publicat in M.Of. nr. 068 din data: 6/28/1923 D3165/1923 Lege asupra proprietatii literare si artistice" and from 1956:

Vaslui Battle image[edit] (Text reprodus din “Enciclopedia României”, vol. I, editie coordonata de Dimitrie Gusti, tiparita in perioada 1938-1940) CristianChirita

Dpotop, can you please read this discussion and tell us if it's okay to use images from that encyclopedia? As far as I know, you guys said that material prior to 1957 can be used. Did I understood it right? Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I scanned the image from a book called "Povestiri Istorice - Partea I" from 1987. If that isn't allowed, can we use your picture? --Candide, or Optimism 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let me know if you find a picture of it and if you can scan it. Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Anything new on the status of that image? --Candide, or Optimism 01:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the good work. I was too laizy to do it myself (not to mention I had no skill at it :)) There is no need for me to get... involved in it right now. I just removed the NPOV warning that I had previously inserted there. -Paul- 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Great(er) Romania[edit]

Dear Jmabel, I'm surprised by your remark that "Great Romania always stuck in my craw as unlikely English". Does it also happen with "Great Britain"? I believe not, and I feel somehow discriminated. FYI, "Romania Mare" is not a term coined after 1944, but in the period Romania was infdeed great. At the time, it conveyed the same greatness idea as "Great Britain" does. And the country name is used today as a historic reference.

Let's now take a look at the "Greater Romania" party, where you voted for a name change (actually, the vote took place on the "Vadim Tudor" page, a page that I don't really follow). It seems to me that there are some problems with this vote, given that its subject was the change of the official name of a party. There must be some wikipedia rule against changing official names and their official translations.

Can you please comment?Dpotop 11:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that nothing in English has this form ("Great"); there are also a few things called "Grand" (Grand Cayman Island, for example). I'm saying that it is unusual. I believe (though I'm not sure) that the etymology of "Great" Britain is that it is the largest of the British Isles; similarly for Grand Cayman. This is not parallel to that. This is more like (for example) "Greater Germany" (a term that is somewhat discredited by its Nazi associations, but a Google search will easily show is used by friend and foe alike).
I believe that what I said in that vote is that if it is official for the party, then we are stuck with it, but it goes against my instincts as a native speaker, and if it is official then the party chose poorly. - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
("Great Britain" is as opposed to "Little Britain", i.e. Brittany.) Mark1 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The Moldovan prince Laţcu (ca. 1369-1377), son of the very first ruler of Moldova, is recognized as duke of Moldova by the Holy See, and the recognition letters states that Moldova is a part of the Vlach (Romanian) nation: dux Moldavie partium seu nationis Wlachie.

Se pot citi aceste scrisori online? Daca nu, stii de niste referinte?--Candide, or Optimism 19:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Deci in cartea aia ai gasit acesta informatie? Daca da, spune ce pagina ca vreau sa folosesc si eu referinta aia pentru un alt articol. Presupun ca a scrisa in limba engleza? Scrie multe detalii despre tarile romanesti inainte de 1437 si 1504? --Candide, or Optimism 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Mersi. Poate o cumpar. --Candide, or Optimism 20:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Do you actually believe that Iliescu didn't play a part in PSD politics -- including while he was president -- and tolerated corruption in the party? Constitutionally, he could not play a direct role while presiden. But de facto, he remained (and some would argue still remains) the most important figure in PSD.


I had specified: all papers needed approval of some sort in the post-Revolution months. The source mentioned that the paper was favorable to the gvt. (and you don't need the source to tell you that: just read issues of the period). Again, this is not to say "fault" on the part of the gvt. (although the case has been made by others, it is not my concern). I had deleted "backing" or whatever the pov word was for precisely this reason. I think you'll find that the info as I had left it is not pov. You rushed in. Please, switch it back. Dahn 15:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that "all papers needed approval of some sort in the post-Revolution months". It seems to me that you suggest censorship, whereas those times left me with the definite impression of anarchy at all levels. Unless you have a very credible source, we disagree on this, and I would like you to rephrase the sentence in the Vadim article. Clearly, on certain issues RM was favourable to the government (in the very beginning). But saying that the journal received the OK of Iliescu and Roman seems pretty unsubstantiated to me right now (definitely less than what is needed for wiki). Dpotop 19:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Papers had to be issued approval. Not censorship per se, since nobody was controlling what they were to say from that point on. You just had to be registered if you wanted to start publishing (I guess it is because there were no representative institutions for the press). I agree that the matter is murky, but the simple fact that speculation was brought on the gvt. should imply that the gvt. had the position to approve the paper into existance. You filed a demand, you got an answer. I don't see how anarchy or order gets into it. The Roman gvt. has faced a hard time from opponents for making a gesture which might have just as well been in the spirit of press freedoms. I agree thet most of the accusations are non sequiturs. However: what ought to have been looked into is wether RM helped the Roman gvt. Controversy aside, you are left with facts: 1. publishing required some sort of approval (does not equal condoning); 2. RM was not favorable to the gvt. on some issues - try all (all of importance in the era); 3. the two might be connected, or might not - any conclusion can be drawn (and not provoked, as the previous text in the article attempted) by making these two clear. They are facts. Incidentaly, I am not at all adverse on principle the Roman gvt. See: Paul Goma on Eugen Barbu - not un-biased, but the verb "to obtain" is in there as objective; Victor Neumann identifies the Iliescu and Roman as "sponsors" - it two is probably biased, but the accusation is an overstatement of the same objective action. Cannot cite source, but Vadim himself has awknowledged the fact that the magazine obtained approval (not sponsorship, not applause, not hugs and kisses, but a thing in itself). Dahn 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, speaking only of your statement (1) (I do not contest the other). Any journal, e.g. Romania Libera, requires some form of registration. But then, do you say that all articles in Romania Libera of the time required "approval"? I am asking this because RL was a journal at that time, too.
In my oppinion, you cannot say "with the approval of II and PR" in such a clear-cut fashion. As you noted in your reply, you have some facts, that you can report. But the conclusion is not that clear. In my oppinion, it rapidly became clear that Vadim and Iliescu had different goals and ideologies. Dpotop 10:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Be careful ![edit]

Bai, fi atent, ca dobitocii astia vor sa ne stearga tag-urile care spun ca suntem in favoarea unificarii Romania-Moldova, pentru ca vasazaica sunt "polemice si inflamatorii" ! Gimme a friggin' break ! Sa nu cumva sa-i lasi sa-ti modifice pagina, daca it-i vor scoate elemente din, ea, sa le pui la loc. Am sa transmit mesajul si la ceilalti Romani. Bafta. -Voievod 18:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian minority[edit]

Looked over it, not in detail. Yours needs some work, and some putting in context. Theirs is mostly crap (notice that they disapprove of the UDMR, and favor that other alliance - the 0.00000000000001% of the vote one). Also, the Dutch guy is on their side because he is actually Frisian. I hate to be the Mioriţa, but something nasty is being prepared for you - check out the Frisian guy's talkpage. KIDB discovered that a ban on you from a Hungarian would draw suspicions of POV, so I think he's asking the Frisian to do it. These people are really obtuse. BUT: that uncalled for userbox you have does not give one the impression that you yourself are NPOV. Mesajele pe care le primesti de la voievozi care sustin Noua Dreapta, scrise intr-o romana jenanta, imi spun ceva mie. Dar nu neaparat despre tine. Dahn 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, you heard the remark of a "liberal" Romanian contributor. LOL LOL

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. You did. I will not ever condone the bias of the Hungarian sources in this instance, and I do not consider the references they make accurate, nor well-meaning. Of course, when trying to be concise (as I had done in my prevous message), you may give the impression that you are talking about people in general. I was not. But I cannot consider logical or fair that somebody would cite in his defence the existance of a body claiming to represent Magyars that only polls this much vs. a Hungarian Party that is in government in Romania. I was answering specifically to Maartenvdbent's extreme POV on KIDB's talk page (note the reference to "Romanian bullshit"). I stand by my assertion that the two's edits show they are indeed obtuse. (Note:My reference to Maartenvdbent as a Frisian was not backed by evidence. I assumed that his will to support an autonomist POV was based on his own agenda, and I relied on a point made by KIDB. If I'm wrong, I appologize.) Dahn 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop, I appologize for delaying my answer as to my view on Romanian identity in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I decided to take a brake from these issues, and did some tother things on wiki, but I will reply soon enough. However, I had to account for myself on the matter of Hungarian/Romanian POV. Dahn 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood. Read again, and notice that I had said the exact contrary of that. I had written: "I don't agree with much of what Dpotop's views, but I was concerned about a possible ban. Not only because I think it would be unfair (his views are not remotely extreme - I referenced a talk I had over his supposed bias: see his full attitude)". Perhaps I have been cryptical, but what I meant was that your views have mostly been taken out of context, and that we had a debate over generalities in which you showed yourself to be a moderate. Dahn 11:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Enciclopedia României vol. I[edit]

Salut. Asteptam vesti de la tine despre imaginea cu batalia de la Vaslui, ca sa o pot sa u adaug la articol, dar vad ca nu ai mai dat semn de viata. Articolul acuma are multe footnotes si o sa mai adaug cateva, dar ar fi bine ca sa am si o imagine pentru el, asa ca te rog sa faci orice in puterile tale ca sa scanezi imaginea pentru articol - chiar si sa dai in cap la cuiva, daca trebuie. Este vorba despre imaginea asta care se poate gasi in Enciclopedia României vol. I. --Candide, or Optimism 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Salut. Te-am contactat pt avem serioase probleme la articolul wikipedian despre Romanians. Dupa cum vezi, user-ii Jayig si administratorul SlimVirgin au pus cele mai joase cifre posibile. Cand am incercat sa intervin, punand numerele adevarate, am fost blocat pt "vanadalism", asa trebuie ca toti wikipedistii Romani sa facem ceva. Daca te intereseaza si vrei sa te alaturi, da-mi un email sau scrie pe pagina talk Romanians. Numai bine, NorbertArthur 2 Aprilie 2006


Ok. Mai vorbim pana atunci, banuiesc. Dahn 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Particula IO[edit]

Am citit intr-o lucrare a unui profesor de istorie. Din pacate, nu pot sa-ti dau chiar acum mai multe referinte. Am sa caut si sa-ti raspund. Pana atunci, uite un citat din Al. Vlahuta, Din trecutul nostru , cap.8: "Acest „Io”, pus înainte la numele vechilor domni români, este o prescurtare din „Ioniţă”, împăratul românilor şi al bulgarilor, cel mai viteaz şi mai cu vază dintre Asăneşti: amintirea lui s-a păstrat de voievozii noştri ca un titlu de glorie." [2] Greier 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi! Thanks for asking. Well, yeah I still support Băsescu to an extent. He's quite a lot better than Iliescu, obviously! However, I'm starting to dislike the Democratic Party more and more, and also dislike Băsescu's populist-nationalist attitude in some cases. But his foreign policy is good, and I think he has been Romania's best president since 1989. Still, I tend to support the PNL politicians more. In the Băsescu-Tăriceanu conflict, I support Tăriceanu. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 10:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ajuta-ne la tradus la articolul Romanians --Bombonel 20:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Someone else has stated that the Romanian language does not distinguish between "uniate" and "united". Are there really two distinct words? Lima 04:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the Biserica Română Unită cu Roma, Greco-Catolică really accept the designation "Biserica Română Uniată"? (Please excuse any spelling error.) Lima 12:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Then are you sure it is not true in Romania that: "Some of the present-day Eastern Catholics regard the term (Uniate) negatively, and so its use is often avoided, especially in ecumenical contexts"? Lima 13:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going to trouble to try to clear up my doubts about the exactitude of your "not true in Romania" statement. A Romanian Greek Catholic would certainly be the best judge about whether, in Romania, "some of the present-day Eastern Catholics regard the term negatively." If your friend speaks no language but Romanian, I might still understand him, provided he chooses Latin-derived words like "Biserica Română Unită cu Roma", where the correspondence is extremely close (= Basilica Romana Unita cum Roma). But with your kind help, I should be able to understand what he says in any case. Lima 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


I sow that you posted on Notice..Take care, I was about to be blocked for that. Check this out. GDP 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 00:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

GayFest discussion[edit]

Hi. First of all, nice to have a discussion with you. It's good to talk to someone else with another point of view yet still have a normal, understanding discussion. Yes, I also agree that their doctrine is very much in line with the Noua Dreaptă or "Becalist" neo-far-right view. I have no idea who they are, only that I've had similar debates on the noticeboard with Anonimu in the past. Cheers, Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 09:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuza et al[edit]

I have to log off now, but I'll get back to you on that. Dahn 10:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You see, radicals in Bessarabia weren't interesting even to radicals in Romania. By the moment Bessarabian intellectuals first came to the Old Kingdom, the latter was "well-governed" by a Liberal monopoly created by Mr. Bratianu the elder (who was, like Carada, more of a "Carol-what-say-we-turn-this-into-a-republic-if-you-don't-comply" blackmailer than an actual republican; after all, the "reds" didn't do much, to say the least, in getting Cuza to stay, and the new Bratianist electoral law settled us into a "public officials'-cum-pseudo-Phanariote" centralized state which the Transylvanians came to resent in 1918). The other half of the deal involved Bessarabia: for all the Stere-Hasdeu-Arbore-Averescu hysteria, this was not a priority, and it fell like manna after the WWI debacle.
The main concern was Transylvania: the Conservatives hated the Liberal way of claiming it from our main ally (while they feared Russia without ever calling for Bessarabia), and the Liberals had to concede even there when Carp et al just made it impossible for them to switch to the apparently generous but equally weary Entente. (Also, I should remind you that the main purpose of populist movements created after the war was to get Bratianu jr. to stand trial for his management of the country.) The Poporanist group that left the Socialists came into conflict with the PNL over Bessarabia only in the sense where the PNL got tired of the endless rhetoric, as the main points of debate actually were the Poporanist push for a large-scale agrarian reform and universal suffrage (both of which could threaten the Bratianist edifice, and found themselves pushed to the forefront when the Liberals pushed the homemade 1923 constitution). You see, Bessarabia was not ever a topic, and, on the other hand, no matter what the nationalist-Romanian advocacy was inside it, it ultimately came to Romania on a silver platter and by sheer luck. There, as in Transylvania, the union arguably happened as a last resort; and the Moldavian Republic, which had wanted to remain autonomous, was actually de-legitimized by Bratianu not because of a nationalist drive, but of a fear in the face of political competition (same as with Maniu, who was intentionally left on the sidelines by Ferdinand after the Vaida-Voevod government became too radical).
There is little new bibliography that I know of, sadly. I based my analysis on an overlook of how things looked to Nistor and Arbore - pointing out the fact that, even if these people count as nationalists, their political projects and arguments are ocassionally based on things few Romanian nationalists would admit in retrospect (that is to say: they would admit to stuff such as the fact that the Russsian Empire was not bent on Russianizing Bessarabia, but rather on centralizing itself with the added flavour of Russian culture - while the usual claim today is that they had done the former). A good book to read, which tackles the matter (as well as dealing with Cuza's image), is Lucian Boia's Istorie şi mit in conştiinţa românească. Dahn 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
To answer on the issue of Boia's books. First of all, I don't believe he is oriented towards the west as much as he uses the west as his favorite paradigm (indeed, it was the main paradigm used by his study case); however, he does not fail to talk at length about Hasdeu and some others. He does state that he represents his vision on history, but he also makes it clear that this is because history itself is opinion (he challenges people to prove him wrong, and I think he is definately right). This should not imply lack of objectivity where objectivity is possible: in this case, it is factual that Bessarabia was not a priority (because it is factual that Stere got his ass kicked, that Arbore wrote an immense book comprised of poor excuses, that Iorga was obsessed with Bessarabia but that even he had pleaded for the Entente etc.). I also think he has done a lot of work in pointing out the highly subjective views of Greek Catholics in Transylvania (granted, he probably didn't impress with it, but that is prolly because people have been doing just that -even if in several ways- from Maiorescu and Caragiale to Ceausescu, to the point where it has become a cliche... Marius Chicoş Rostogan).
To the topic: I think "negligence" was met with "negligence". Consider that the boyars in Bessarabia had virtually no problem in integrating the Russian nobility (Arbore is really pathetic when he talks about Tadeu Hasdeu, Bogdan's father, who would have been a great Romanian, and was indeed a nationalist Romanian, but who never wrote a word in Romanian; the same lame advocacy is noticable in Nistor's book); consider that the peasants were always better off than in Romania; consider that Bessarabia had obtained a privileged status after February 1917, and lost it after November - which led it somewhat grudgingly into Romania; consider that, nevertheless, when they came to see that Bratianu had interesting plans about procrastinating reforms, the peasants there received Bolshevism more than anywhere else in Romania (a fact which I do not necessarily hold against them - not because I would be a Bolshevik, but because I can understand their problems).
Romania has kept a chilly relation with Bessarabia because it kinda had to, taking in view such realities (it started with Bratianu's fears). It would have been very much the same for Transylvania, and prolly even for Bukovina (btw, I think that Bukovina had a relative majority of Ukrainians when it was united with Romania), but centralism has been keeping a tighter grip there - and the ethnocentrism of Hungarians (newly found in reaction to Romanian centralism, as I have mentioned someplace else), despite the negotiations between Maniu and Horthy, scared the Transylvanian Romanians into compliance with Bucharest after the Vienna Diktat. As to the modern prejudice against boiling utensils-sellers (and Grigore Vieru's diatriabes against Romanian people who insist on calling him "Russian"): I don't think it is necessarily connected to the historical ambivalence, although it may partly be, and I believe it is a prejudice already popular with this-side-of-the-border Moldavians. Dahn 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
WOW, what a short explanation...Take a look at History of the Moldovan language-- 17:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Well, you see, as it is, that is the only article which covers the exact position of rulers in Moldavia and Wallachia (unlike voivode, which is vague - while being a secondary, if popular, self-reference, and unlike Domnitor, which is adequately limited to "post union pre-kings"). Also, the last time I have checked, "hospodar" is "domn" in Slavonic etc. (and we both know the status of Slavonic until the late 18th century); since the article was already present in Britannica, unlike "domn", I'm guessing the former is traditional, and the latter would be an irrelevant neologism.

I would have just as well called them Princes (although hospodar is perfectly ok), but there is no single term for both countries (we only have the separate lists). Dahn 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I cannot link to a single article, which is what I had intended to do. Dahn 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I think that I will bring testimony rather than support a complaint: I have noticed that he was very active in assigning blames a while back, but I think that was largely ineffectual, and, if his arbitrary is bewildering, I want to distance myself from what TSOD has said (not because it is a "personal attack", but because it was entrenched). The problems I see with the article as is now are related to the fact that it probably the most vague and ellusive article on an ethnicity. The most annoying thisng I have seen Mikka do was from a while back, on Talk:Moldova, where he has refered to a source for Moldova's alleged multi-culturality (which he and others had thought of just then), which was actually contradicting his very point if one were to read it thoroughly, and then has implied that we are all racists. What he does now is simply puerile, and I'm not sure it deserves the attention of an RfC. However, if you feel that it is justified by a constancy in actions (granted, I did not pay much attention to what he has been saying in the past), I will bring in my two cents. Dahn 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know, actually. I have not really brushed into his activities as administrator: if you open an RfC or a Cabal issue which would include mention of other incidents, in the measure where these are relevant, I believe my reaction to what he what he's been doing today (his behaviour is not insulting, but is not adminstrator-like, IMO: that is why, knowing myself, I shall never run for admin :)) could turn into a support for your actions. From what I know of what he has been doing, however, I do not believe that he has crossed a line. Dahn 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

it is prohibited in Wikipedia for an admin to block his opponent what can be done if one Admin in this case Mikka had blocked Nixer and Constanteanu in bad faith. --Brasoveanul 10:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the content of the edits should be taken into account as well. --Vlachos 11:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's make that RfC, user Mikkalai just insulted me on Talk page:Moldovans. --Brasoveanul 05:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancestral Dnestral[edit]

I am not familiar with mich on the subject, but I do know that, if the claim is not indeed entirely bogus, it is merely irrelavent. From what I know, the Kazars kept the Magyars in check and allowed them to settle in Bessarabia, which was on their border, until they had to leave the place for some disputed reason - this couldn't have been a long time before they came to Pannonia and Transylvania. Considering that, although Kieven Rus' successfully attacked the Kazars around the same time, it took some tens of years more for Kiev itself to crumble... So, if there was such a presence, it was short, it was replacing another presence, and it was soon out of there. Now, if this is to prove a "Romanian presence" on that side of the Dnestr... well, that just never was the case (unless you consider peasants escaping to become Cossaks "Romanians"). Dahn 22:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Salut Dpotop. As vrea sa colaboram la ceva daca poti si bineinteles daca vrei. Ma refer la pagina despre Romanians si Romania, pe care as vrea amandoua sa el ameliorez calitatea. Tu ce crezi, la Romanians sunt numerele bun acolo? Eu sunt 100% sigur ca nu. Daca te intereseaza, da-mi un raspuns. Toate cele bune. Arthur 21 Iunie 2006

Aha. Pai da cred ca ai dreptate despre Moldoveni, nu e vina recensamantului ca iei isi scuipa-n urma neamul romanesc si istoria. Treaba e ca trebuie sa gasim surse cu cifrele diasporei romanesti, cu care sa le dovedim ca nu sunt aiureli ce sustinem, eu am deja cateva, pt USA si Canada, in care traiesc respectiv 1,5 mil. si 400.000 de Romani. Inca o chestie despre care vroiam sa iti cer parerea, e populatia actuala a Romania. Toate estimarile facute dupa 2003 sunt peste 22 de milioane, si hartile de diminuare si uracre a populatiei globului indicau o urcare anuala de 0.3%, de fapt o stagnanta a populatiei. Tu ce crezi, sunt numai 22 de milioane de Romania in Romania, pt ca dupa Recensamantul din 2002 nu prea ne putem lua, cifrele sunt toate scazute (ex.Rromi). Mai discutam si numai bine. Arthur 21 Iunie 2006

Buna Dpotop,

ai vazut de ce s-a apucat node ue? uite: [3]

numai bine, Dapiks 00:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My source is my brain, and if you want to be sure about the datas look after here or use google... Instead of finding foolish alibis write only: I don't like this, i only see my nation's truth,...

Da.. Auzi nu prea am inteles la ce te refereai cand ai spus ca Romania nu e o tara se imigrare. Sa stii ca sunt enorm de multi emigranti romani peste tot, in Vestul Europei, in USA, Canada, Australia,etc. Se estimeaza ca sunt vreo 10 milioane de Romani inafara granitelor Romaniei, deci chiar am emigrat. Arthur 22 Iunie 2006

3RR infringement[edit]

Hi Dpotop. Where exactly was the 3RR broken by the same user? The history is very confusing but it seems that the revert war was not one sided. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 07:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Meta et al[edit]

Da, am vazut. In final, nu stiu la ce ajuta votul ala (incerc sa retin nevoia de a le sugera ce sa faca cu el). In orice caz, aici e alta problema: daca Mikka incearca sa-mi arate cum "nu ne jucam" ca sa iasa un oarecare fundament pentru scrierea oficiala in chirilica doar pentru ca "exista si pe wikipedia", cred ca o sa afle ca nu s-a nascut toata lumea ieri. Vad ca, in rest, variantele articolelor nu mai sunt asa contestate - si sper sa am dreptate atunci cand presupun ca avem de-a face si cu abordari rationale, asa cum mi se pare ultima tema de discutie de pe pagina de Moldova (in sfarsit, am speranta ca putem sa facem locul asta sa fie neutru si coerent). In ceea ce-l priveste pe Mikkalai, eu sustin orice masura daca poti dovedi ca il tine in brate pe baietelul ala care da mesaje pe forumul rusilor. Dahn 07:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

care dovada, nu e evident? Dapiks 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The camp leaves for the skies ;)[edit]

"Physically", you can get virtually all Soviet movies here in Chisinau's "Ptichka", there's a... group of guys who burn them there. "Digitally", though, I'm not so sure, some sites may be of certain help ;) Umm, got email?

"Railstation for two" and "Operation ы" - Вокзал для двоих, Операция Ы - No official or unofficial dubbings into Romanian exist, AFAIK. Although, if there are English and French subtitles, I think Romanian ones might exist, too. --Illythr

Arbitration regarding Moldovian encyclopedia[edit]

The Arbitration Committee for the English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over questions regarding the Moldovian encyclopedia. I'm not sure which side you are on or the issues involved but everyone should be courteous. Fred Bauder 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

salut, poti sa-mi spui si mie in doua vorbe ce s-a intamplat cu votul acela a lui node la wiki:mo pentru sysopi? Din cate am vazut eu, el si-a facut regulile singur singurel, si tot el impreuna cu Moldova si Varul lui Bonaparte (probabil sockpuppets) s-a ales. Cumva a fost acceptat votul acela sau nu? Dapiks 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Scuza-ma dar care noticeboard? cel de pe mo:wiki? poate i-mi dai linkul - eu m-am uitat peste tot acolo si nu am vazut decat comentariul cu "it's over". Important este ca sa-l impiedicam pe acest copil sa scrie la administratie si sa prezinte votul asta ca pe unul valabil.Dapiks 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Cererea mea era "stergerea totala a mo.wikipedia". Nimic despre rezultatul votului (si daca spune asa, e un mincions). Mo.wikipedia are un sysadmin, si un sysop, chiar daca temporari. Dpotop 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Care administratie? Cea de pe wikipedia-l nici nu vrea sa mai auda de Uita-te si tu la schimburile de mesaje, mie mi se parea suprarealist. O asemenea rea indiferenta n-am vazut in viata mea. Cred ca o perioada o sa o sterg total de pe wikipedia. Nu sunt convins ca merita sa depun efort pentru o organizatie pe care o doare in fund de doleantele editorilor ei. Dpotop 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Ceea ce trebuie facut acum este sa il tinem sub observatie pe node_ue pe forumurile, wikipedia-l, ca sa nu poata cere adminship fara ca noi sa stim. Pe node_ue nu mai e decat un simplu editor. Un arbitru de pe mi-a spus ca nu au nici o autoritate pe Deci, nu vad cui ar putea sa se planga. Iar impotriva intrigilor nu putem face nimic. Din pacate, Node_ue e maestru in dezinformare. Dpotop 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Ieri mi-a trimis direct pe mail un mesaj anti-romanesc, si azi, cand l-am postat pe forum, spunea "cine, eu?". Iar celorlalti nu le vine sa creada. Probabil ca si mie mi s-ar parea incredibil de josnic. Stii, si mi-ar place ca potentialii viitori copii ai mei sa fie infipti, insa daca vreodata il prind cu asa porcarii (minciuna, dezinformare, name it) le dau o bataie de nu se vad. Dpotop 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Mai am o idee. Daca vrei sa discutam, scrie-mi la Dpotop 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Salut! Uită-te la en:User:Node_ue şi m:User:Node_ue. :) Adriatikus 06:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WTF ?[edit]

L-ai felicitat degeaba pe User:Illythr. I-am scris pe pagina de discutii, dar e posibil sa stearga, asa ca fac un copy-paste aici:

"...but don't understand the Latin script having never learned a Latin-based language before."
This is you here: [4].
I don't want to start a flame/off-topic war, neither here, nor on (that's why I didn't write it there), but can you tell me what script were you using in the sentence above ? Do you think it's logical what you claim ?

Cum ti se pare ?

In alta ordine de idei, cred ca ar trebui pregatita "sufleteste" comunitatea RoWiki pt o eventuala unealta de transliteratie. Insa eu vad partea buna a lucrurilor, si anume ideea ca (indiferent de alfabet) vor citi si scrie in romaneste. Ceea ce e un lucru bun dpdv al identitatii, tinand cont de manipularea politica la care sunt supusi inca. Si nu ma refer numai la cei din Rep Mold, ci la toti cei din spatiul ex-sovietic. In schimb cred ca MoWiki ar trebui stearsa definitiv. Nici chiar o redirectionare spre RoWiki nu mi se pare OK. Limba asta nu exista.

Salve. -- Adriatikus 00:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

propunerea ta[edit]

Mi-ai scris ca: "Also, Moldovanists have their language code (which is what they want)". Arata-mi si mie, te rog, unde s-a propus existenta Eu am inteles ca moldovenii au cerut stergerea. "Moldovenistii" ce au propus ? Unde ? Am nevoie de informatia asta ca sa-mi fac o parere si dau reply pe meta.

Ca parere preliminara cred ca te-ai grabit. Razboiul meu nu e politic sau impotriva rusilor sau sa demonstrez o etnicitate sau mai stiu eu ce. Numai ca marile manipulari incep de la concepte, de la idei generale care par ca nu au legatura cu realitatea contingenta. In cazul de fata existenta lb mo.

Am mai spus, si mai spun o data ca argumentele mele nu sunt politice. Dimpotriva. Incerc sa aduc argumente ca e o falsitate stiintifica (ca a aparut din motive politice, si ca nu e ceea ce pare dpdv stiintific). WP trebuie sa ia in considerare numai faptele stiintifice, nu sa accepte decrete politice.

Pt ca "" se refera la codul de limba, si nu la codul de tara (nu exista, nu mi se pare o rezolvare, ci numai un compromis. Partea buna ar fi ca, in sfarsit, s-ar aduce totul sub umbrela lb ro. Dar tot compromis ramane. Si nu-mi prea place.

Thanks. Adriatikus 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I might've gotten a bit carried away editing stuff there. Mind giving those reworded passages a quick check? --Illythr 23:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumably forged email[edit]

I have replied to you at Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. If, as I gather you are claiming, Node has forged something supposedly from you and has uploaded it to a Wikimedia server, I'd suggest that you go do an RFC and ask for immediate arbitration, skipping the mediation process. Forgery is an extremely serious offense against our standards. - Jmabel | Talk 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If he claims that the message is real, you might start by asking him to produce full headers, though I suppose he can forge those as well. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan native speaker[edit]

I happened to look at Mo and I saw this new account. I don't know if it's real or not, but I'm sure as Hell that Node will jump on it. TSO1D 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

un link[edit]

Moldova isi rescrie istoria terorizata de Romania, Cotidianul 20060719 Adriatikus 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Romania as featured article[edit]

Romania has been nominated to be a featured article ( See Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article? for information ). Please cast your vote ( Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Romania ) as to if it should be or not be approved as a featured article. Your vote counts. -Danielsavoiu 08:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible forgery, etc.[edit]

I guess I'm willing to play the trustee role if necessary. I find the whole thing rather perplexing. From what I've seen of your work, it would be quite out of character for you to send such a message; I find it marginally (but only marginally) more likely that Node forged it. My strongest suspicion is some third party is sitting back laughing a the trouble he's caused, though I can't say I know the particular mechanism he might have used. - Jmabel | Talk 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Who I Am[edit]

In response to your question of 5 June to Ronline (which you could have asked me and gotten a much clearer answer), which I just noticed, I would like to state unequivocally that I am not now, nor have ever been, a member of Noua Dreaptă, nor indeed ever knowingly associated with any of its members. If you want to know more, ask me, since I know a lot more about myself than does Ronline. Biruitorul 05:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vino la pagina de discutii Transnistria[edit]

În 17 septembrie va fi referendum în Transnistria legat de independenţa regiunii. Cu această ocazie probabil multă lume va căuta pe Wikipedia informaţii despre Transnistria. Am încercat să adaug în articol nişte informaţii legate de acest referendum, anume:

- faptul că mai multe organizaţii antiseparatiste au lansat un apel la boicotare, considerînd referendumul "farsă"

- faptul că din 46 de ţări membre ale Consiliului Europei, 45 sînt împotriva recunoaşterii referendumului, numai RUsia are altă părere

- faptul că datele Comisiei Electorale Centrale din Tiraspol au fost schimbate în mod ciudat, anume numărul total de alegători s-a micşorat cu 7% faţă de 2005, ceea ce ridică suspiciuni asupra unei încercări de creştere artificială a prezenţei la vot prin raportarea unui număr mai mic de alegători înregistraţi.

Totdeauna am dat lincurile care dovedesc cele scrise de mine, n-am născocit nimic din burtă.

Userul Willian Mauco, care pare fan Tiraspol, mereu mi-a şters adăugirile. (vezi istoria paginii)

Puteţi vedea la pagina de discuţii Transnistria ce argumente a adus. Anume: ăia care cer boicotarea referendumului din Transnistria sînt foşti KGB-işti, că aşa zice o organizaţie rusească de analiză (a dat un linc pentru asta). Întîi a spus că respectivii nici nu sînt din Transnistria, ci doar din Basarabia, dar i-am dovedit că unii dintre semnatarii apelului la boicot sînt transnistreni. Am fost împăciuitor, i-am zis că n-are decît să adauge părerea organizaţiei ruseşti că antiseparatiştii sînt foşti KGBişti, că n-are decît să-i considere pe cei care vor boicotarea referendumului drept băieţi răi, dar faptul în sine, că s-a cerut boicotarea referendumului, trebuie menţionat. Degeaba, mereu mi s-au şters adăugirile - pentru celelalte 2 fapte nici n-a adus argumente.

A mai fost o adăugire care a şters-o, despre arestarea a 4 persoane din Transnistria care sînt împotriva separatismului (între timp li s-a dat drumul). În cazul ăsta am renunţat eu să mai insist pentru includerea informaţiei în articol (deşi informaţia e incontestabilă), tocmai fiindcă n-am vrut să mă cert prea mult.

În perioada asta cînd agenţiile de ştiri vor menţiona referendumul de la Tiraspol, se va citi articolul Transnistria în Wikipedia poate mai mult decît într-un an întreg. De aia acum e nevoie să existe în articol informaţii despre contestarea corectitudinii referendumului. Nu cer să se menţioneze ca adevăr absolut faptul că referendumul e incorect, ci doar că există unii (OSCE, 45 din 46 ţări ale Consiliului Europei, unele organizaţii din zonă şi din Basarabia) care consideră asta. Vă cer de aceea sprijinul ca să interveniţi pe pagina de discuţii Transnistria pentru a susţine rămînerea informaţiei în pagină şi să repuneţi informaţia atunci cînd Mauco o şterge (eu nu pot să verific chiar 24 de ore din 24). Evitaţi atacurile suburbane, păstraţi ton civilizat. mulţumesc.

Who is William Mauco Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article)

Edward Lucas wrote about Mauco: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 08:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ai aparut in ziar. :)

Hey man! Help Marius! :)

Vote in Transnistria talk page[edit]

I see you still didn't vote about the links in Transnistria talk page. I believe your vote can help to improve the quality of the article.--MariusM 10:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pink Emil[edit]

Hi. I may agree that Paler belongs on the List of Romanian communists, but I personally think Emil has no reason being there. When discussing the matter of PCR-affiliation with User:Biruitorul, he provided a quotation from the law definition of who is and who is not a commie (which is, possibly, the only reasonable criterion to use); unfortunately, the quotation is incomplete (it does sanction Paler's inclusion - see User talk:Dahn#People's Tribunals). I will ask Biru more, and I will probably research the matter myself. In case Emil does not qualify, expect his inclusion to be reverted. Dahn 16:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be legea lustraţiei - I do not know if it is in exercise yet, but I know it was proposed and was debated in parliament. The thing is we need toconsider such criteria so as not to fall into irrelevancy (and also so we do not open pages and categories to various political statements and vendettas). If there is an objective criteria for defining communists as opposed to party members, we need to grab it.
As you have noted, the quotation ends in an "etc.", so we do not know if Emil does not fit in there (if you ask me, it would still be an objectionable inclusion, but I could live with it). However, as it looks now, there is a clear reason why propaganda secretary and party scholl cadre are not at all the same thing. The party organization in one's unit was to get one of its members to become propaganda secretary one way or another; it was basically a task, and anyone could carry it once he was in the party - at the same time, someone had to carry it. As a tacher in a party school you were an associate of the party, carrying out a task which demanded "skill" and conviction; you agreed to be trained, were trained, and trained others in communism. Now, after 1968, most party trainers probably had no communist convicion as well (and just trained to keep themselves and others busy, as most things were done in this country); however, whenever lacking convictions, they enjoyed privileges (by which I mean "real privileges", not "one more slice of salami") - this is the one objective criteria in defining what made one a communist when conviction was no longer present in a given society. Dahn 18:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's put it this way. On one hand, you have Constantinescu, which assumed the ideological indoctrination of the professors and students in the University of Bucharest, and was quite active on the job in order to get appreciation from "above". On the other side, you have the history and economics teachers and researchers in party schools, that often dispensed courses that were less ideologically biased than many in other universities. So, who's to blame? Dpotop 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not blame anybody merely for being a communist, and, on principle I do not blame anybody for even being an activist in the party (or rather, I would not - if I weren't to know whta that usually meant). In any case, the issue is not about blame, but about actual political affiliation. To make myself clear: we are trying to objectively define what are the rough criteria for defining a communist as opposed to defining a person "responsible for x activity under the communist regime". This is what the law itself attempts to do: since there is a criminal code dealing with persons responsible for this or that, the law defines people who helped define and enact party policies, not people who carried out tasks. Consider the obvious - it would have regarded Ceausescu as well as Brucan and Iliescu, but not people like Constantinescu and Roman. I find some of its projected effects questionable for this very reason, but it is a good structure in this particular case. We are not really looking for people defined by the Romanian word "activist" (and the particular, strict, and ultimately irrelevant meaning it carries), but for people who are "activists" in the broad, English sense, while excluding those who, "blame" aside, could be said to have had, at least under the widest of definitions, at least for part of their lives, relevant communist convictions. Otherwise, the list would turn into a useless littany. Dahn 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but then you should:
  1. Exclude from your defintion of "activist" the teachers in party schools. These guys were involved in high-level definition of party policies. Of course, this definition is not that of a "communist". There were communists in all other classes, because "communist" is the name of a person that assumes the communist ideology.
  2. Create a new class of "ideology teachers/preachers", that includes the ideology teachers in party schools, as well as propaganda secretaries. A disclaimer here should say "they did not define ideology, but preaced it either from convition, or to obtain advantages".
  3. Create a new class of "teachers/employees in party schools/establishments", different from the ones above, which includes not only ideology teachers, but also the other. A disclaimer here should say that part of them did a normal job.
I do see this distinction, and I believe it should be visible on wikipedia. Dpotop 08:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
D, as we stand, there are no party school teacher articles to be mentioned, som much of this pointless. Furthermore, I am certainly not going to use "preacher" to define an activist, and I cannot believe that anyone could vouch for such a category of people as "being communists". I myself can live with excluding all teachers and whatever Constantinescu was from the category if you agree that neither are representative of what a communist is: the point is to find a bottom line and stick with it. Now, if you want to include Constantinescu on any such lists, I have to use the definition of the law - because you yourself point out this not about convictions. If we can agree to dropping such criteria, we place the bar higer - but you have to indicate how high and based on what objective rule (and not just indicate what persons it ought to apply to). Dahn 12:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Intervenţia ta la articolul Transnistria[edit]

Intervii destul de rar în articolul Transnistria. N-am înţeles ultima ta intervenţie, în care ai "corectat" datele mele fără a discuta cu mine. Nu numai cu Mauco trebuie ajuns la compromis, mai exist şi eu (chiar dacă nu stau 24h/24 pe web, că nu-s plătit). Nu sînt de acord cu adăugarea basarabenilor la lista "nativilor transnistreni" cu excepţia acelei zone din Basarabia care e controlată de Transnistria (Bender, Chiţcani). Eu pusesem separat pe cei născuţi în Basarabia, ce era greşit în asta?--MariusM 19:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

transnistria talk page[edit]

Dpotop: our sharp exchange on Transnistria's talk page was unfortunate, but your comments were too personal for my taste. Anyway, here is my olive branch. Bygones? Jamason 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

-er Romania[edit]

Hi. You know, I could perhaps list them, but I figure you could basically look up any English-language reference from the interval 1919-1940, and note the usage (I google booked two of them for you: Slabey Roucek, Contemporary Roumania and her problems: "On the other hand, the people of Greater Roumania were..."; Charles Upson Clark, United Roumania: "In 1911 the poet Octavian Goga, who was to represent Transylvania in the first Parliament of Greater Roumania..."). The usage is overwhelming in favour of "Greater", and the notion that it implies irredentism, although accurate (the notion was the result of irredentism in the purest and most neutral of senses - check out the history of the term), was not necessarily the reason behind the choice. Not to mention that the reason behind the term does not in the least weigh next to the fact that it is used overwhelmingly. Dahn 01:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, actually I wouldn't. You will note that the article for the party features "Great" as an alternate. If it was propven to me that the Party itself uses the term, and that the usage is in a coherent English context, I would invert the name and alternative name, and would ask an admin to move the article to the "Great" name. And I would also explain the discrepancy between term and party on the article for the party.
I will state this again about the "disclaimer" on the Greater Romania page - whatever fear people have of the term "irredentist", and however they may have begun to use it in Romania (namely, as "something the Hungarians and only the Hungarians do"), it is precisely the other way around. That "disclaimer" is wishful thinking and original research. The term was created before WWI to refer to the policies of a would-be Allied power (Italy), that decided to go into war on the basis of reuniting all territories inhabited by Italians - which is basically what happend to Romania. In general, this alsoimplied reuniting territories where Italians were a minority - which was also the case in Romania. In fact, if I remember correctly, pro-Entente politicians in Romania used the term "irredentist" to define themselves. Nothing in these invalidates Greater Romania, but you misuse and misinterpret the term "irredentist". The negative connotations of the term refer to the centralist-imperialist tendency associated with it, as well as to the anti-statu quo character of virulent ethnic nationalism; however, Romania has generally assumed both stances as points of glory - quite paradoxiacally, Hungary has not. Read the definition of the term in the article on irredentism, and note what aplies to Transylvania in both the Romanian and Hungarian discourses.
History does necessarily establish if things are positive or negative, and we should not write the same Whig history we learned from Ceauşescu. Dahn 10:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Good points. I certainly do not know for sure if the term was used before WWI, but I think I remember it was. The problem was, and this will also reply to your query about irredentists in both camps, that nobody could have forseen that Romania would get all of irredentas back (the Liberals went with prioritizing Transylvania and angering Constantin Stere, the rest with "let's at least not sign Bessarabia off by dancing with Russia").
There are, however, some essential points: the exact provinces forming Greater Romania in 1918-1920 were clearly the subject of irredentist demands; the principle behind their joining was textbook irredentism (even if the completion of the union was less so - Romania was defeated when it got Bessarabia, and, although it was not regarded as an Allied Power when the Liberals stormed into Transylvania, there had been feedback from Transylvania itself; let's not forget, however, that the Italian irredentist dream also implied voting and local initiatives, even to a point where the italian state had to quell various pro-Italian rebellions outside its nominal territory - see, for example, Charter of Carnaro). And, what is more important, the notion does reflect irredentism if used today.
I am not, in fact, calling on you to accept defining the term as "irredentist". As you may see, I try and be aware of the many problems involved in unilateraly defining both concepts of "irredentism" and "Greater Romania". The point is that the disclaimer in question carries a problem (it is voiced as if someone is using his or her own arguments to disuade an opinion that one cannot really exclude); simply mentioning that it was used in retrospect would spare us that POV (let readers draw their conclusions based on facts). Dahn 12:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question to Ronline: where there was no official regulation (and the main topic is always going to be informal), wikipedia goes with popularity and notoriety. Dahn 13:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, btw. Please review the template for history of Romania (present in the Greater Romania article): it should read "Kingdom of Romania and Greater Romania" (on the same line), not a clear separation; like me and Jmabel did with the listing "National awakening and Regulamentul Organic". The latter is always a subsection of the former, and we should see about how we direct and select information (for example, will the Kingdom of Romania article become too large - I plan to work on it - and will we need to divide into sections? if so, will Greater Romania become a section where we deal with actual 1918-1940 history rather than an over-inflated explenation of a historical and informal term?). I tried to do it myself, but I kept coming up with a weird result - perhaps you'll be able to fix it. Dahn 13:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because you might care[edit]

I became pretty convinced about the "three B's" of Wikipedia - i mean the "Be Bold" Bullshit concept (sorry for the language, but this is exactly how I feel about editing, after my recent experience "in the field"). I just found something incorrect and I guess you could care about that. I am talking about the March_27 page (Hint: look for 1918). And by the way, is there any convention about old-style / new-style dates? -Paul- 16:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your block on Meta-Wikimedia[edit]

Hi. I've contacted User:Millosh on his Meta talk page about his actions, which I also feel are unjustified and unfairly applied, particularly since he was also involved in the dispute and should've gotten a third-party to block you if he felt your actions deserved this. Additionally, Meta is not governed by the same strict policies as the English Wikipedia, and for this reason the rationale for blocking has to be more compelling. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 07:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems Millosh is rather hard to work with. I've contacted a third-party steward, meta:User:Jon Harald Søby, to look into the case. I'm determined that justice win out in this case, and will do all I can to make sure no admin abuse takes place at Meta. Are you still blocked on Meta-Wiki? If not, then you can edit the page yourself and I'll make sure that no problems take place, as long as the edits are neutral and untendentious. Thanks, Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi! I'm kinda tired right now, could you please explain more clearly why we should remove the word "union"? Sorry, it's been a long day. :-) Khoikhoi 23:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I mean, with all the massive pro-union protests that were going on in Chişinău at the time, it's hard to see that the poll was about anything but union with Romania. I also don't get why they would even ask the public about the Transnistria question. Was there ever a thought in their minds to give up? Every Moldovan administration has stood firm on the question of whether or not it belongs to Moldova. What do you think? Khoikhoi 03:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that was interesting! Hopefully we can work together to improve the article from now on. Cheers, Khoikhoi 23:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't know you had a specific question—what was it again? Khoikhoi 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is what you said:

Hello. Yesterday you put a [citation needed] mark in a statement of Moldovan referendum, 1994. I do agree with you that the statement is not really factual. My impression is that it belongs after the facts, with all the interpretations for which sources exist. However, my impression was that you would like to say something about Romania in the introduction. This is why I added this statement (to achieve an agreement with you). If I'm mistaken, then it's perfect: we can create a section "Interpretations of the referendum", where all interpretations and media echoes would go, including that statement, the position of the soviet jews (the link you sent me yesterday), etc. Dpotop 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And then my reply was, "well, yeah". Khoikhoi 00:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Transnistria, NN[edit]

Instead of this[5] and this[6], why don't you participate in the ongoing discussion in Talk:Politics of Transnistria ...? Edit warring and revert warring is frowned upon, and it is especially awful when it is carried out without joining in Talk. - Mauco 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

you got email! citeste-l te rog :-)

Bes SSR[edit]

Mă gîndesc să propun pentru ştergere articolul Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic, ca şi hoax, căci Mikka (creatorul articolului) n-a venit cu dovezi concrete că o asemenea republică a existat cu adevărat, iar ce scrie în articol (capitala era la Odesa) e de fapt o dovadă că respectiva republică a existat doar în visele unor bolşevici. Nici măcar Enciclopediile Sovietice nu o menţionează (conform Mikka). Am explicat părerea mea şi în pagina de discuţii a articolului. Aş vrea să ştiu şi părerea ta, creză că o propunere pentru ştergere e necesară?--MariusM 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Mulţumesc frumos pentru sprijin. Nu ştiu dacă mi-aş modera neapărat vederile politice (atunci să-l facem şi pe Vadim admin!), dar apreciez sentimentele. Biruitorul 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Transnistria[edit]

If you do not understand, then please ask me to clarify. Please do not just undo an edit of mine, like you did here.[7]

I am removing the following misspelled and badly phrased: "Despite court rulling, at Electoral Comission meeting on 27 November, registration of Safonov was not accepted, some members claiming that court decision need to be chalanged to a higher instance. The Commision will take a decision about this Tuesday."

It is now Friday. The decision was taken, Safonov is in the race. Remove.

And "Starting with tuesday 7th December, early voting is allowed for those persons who will have no possibility to come to the polls in 10th December".

Why is this relevant for an encyclopedia? Besides, there is no such thing as "tuesday 7th December" at least not in 2006. Sloppy entry, bordering on vandalism. Clearly not thought through, and certainly not discussed in Talk either. - Mauco 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

admin needed on Transnistria[edit]

Hello Jmabel. One or more administrators are needed on the Transnistria page, and I thought you might just understand te context. My oppinion is simple: there are two guys who try to spin information by all means. To give you an idea, I believe that even Node_ue on the Moldova page was more reasonable one year ago. But, of course, I'm not an administrator. Dpotop 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the "two guys" are Wm. Mauco and Mark? I saw this and didn't actually feel confident to wade in. Mark has also gotten involved in Basque-independentist topics, but seems less to have a horse in that race.
It's really not a topic I know well. I know Bucharest very well (well enough that I can often show locals around places they've never thought to explore). I know Romanian history pretty well for a foreigner. But I probably have less than an average educated Romanian's knowledge of present-day Moldova, and much of that is with reference to Moldova's relationship to Romania. So the only thing I'd really bring to this is knowing the work of the people who work on Romanian-related topics and having a moderately decent ability to read Romanian.

Has anyone tried an RFC about the article(s), or about someone's conduct if that has been obviously egregious, or tried asking for mediation on this? (You can answer here or on my page, but ping me on my page if you answer here, because I'm backlogged a good 3+ days on my watchlist.)- Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I can try looking in, but if the issues are that basic, then other admins you might imaginably contact are:

  • Oleg Alexandrov. Totally not his sort of topic (he's works almost entirely on math-related topics), but I believe he is the only Moldovan national who is an administrator, hence probably much more than routinely informed on the topic.
  • Electionworld, Dutch jurist involved in European liberal politics, might have an interesting perspective
  • Joy, Croatian, might bring an interesting perspective.
  • Alex Bakharev, Russian, lives in Australia
  • Bogdangiusca, Romanian
  • Crzrussian, Russian, I believe Jewish, law student in NYC
  • GTBacchus, good guy, I've met him a few times here in Seattle. No specific connections to this topic, but seems to have very good general values about building an encyclopedia.

I'm sure there are quite a few others; this was on a quick skim through the list of admins. - Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Were you able to get what you needed on this? I'm a little more available now, and will be much more available in four days. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


The PSDR, as it was known at the time of its disestablishment, merged into the PSD. There is no historical continuity between the present-day PSD and the interwar PSD. The rest is just too complicated to explain in one go, but, basically, what works for a PNT (single article) and a PNL (single article) will work for the PSD of the 1930s and for the PSDR, but not for the present-day PSD (the latter is a successor to the PDSR, if you remember that party). Dahn 21:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

1.This doesn't make any sense: "PSD (today) = (so to say) PDSR != PSD". What you want to have is: ""PSD (today) = (so to say) PDSR != FDSN = FSN = CFSN" The link with the interwar PSD is as colloquial as the link to the PCR. 2. all the PSD(R)s except the present-day one have claimed direct lineage to the 1910 PSDR (and an indirect one to the PSDMR); the present-day PSD claims indirect succession from the PSDR and direct one from the PDSR. 3. like the PSDR did, both the PNL and the PNT have claim to interwar predecessors, and are generally identified as their successors - not only that, there is a history of factual continuity (see the Corneliu Coposu article). It is like the difference between interregnum and demise. Dahn 22:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Also: if you had actually read the article, you would have noticed that the pre-1947 party was, in fact, 4 or 5 parties according to the criteria you like using. Consider it: established 1910, banned 1916, recreated 1927, banned 1938, recreated 1944 (but somehow active throughout the war...), split 1946, merged into the PCR 1947 (much of the same works for both the PNT and the PNL). Btw, don't you also want me to say that the PCR was successor to the PSDR? Dahn 22:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I reread your post, and noticed that you say that the 1989-2001 PSDR is successor to the 1910-1947 PSD. Well, so says the article (check it out). So, then, what are you challenging me for? Dahn 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What reorganizing move? I just told you that the PSDR and the pre-war PSD are the same thing, and you agreed apparently - which would also in theory work for the PNT and the PNTCD. If you do not believe it possible in the case of the PNTCD, assuming it's on the basis of the long hiatus, I have provided instances where a similar hiatus, if not as long, does exist and is cast aside. Furthermore, with the PNTCD, the matter is incidentally th clearest: not only was its post-1989 leader an important member of the pre-1947 PNT, not only were all its senior members notable members of the PNT, but the party was most active of the banned ones in 1947-1989, and was recognized as successor to th PNTCD before 1989, when it first indicated it had become a Christian-Democratic party (again, see the Corneliu Coposu article). Let's talk to the point. Dahn 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


First of all, I don't see what you changed in the grammar (you had just added the word "Transylvania" and made it a link). Secondly, I do not endorse all of the text, or its grammar, and don't have the time and interest to stand and correct it if it is indeed ungrammatical. But, what you had actually done was obviously nonsensical: read the paragraph from the top, and you will notice that the reference to Transylvania was being made, and that following were listed regions also included in Transylvania (you had turned the text into "Transylvania is included in Transylvania"). Dahn 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

D, make any changes in grammar that you like. But you leave the sentence to indicate that Transylvania (the region referred to) includes Transylvania, and you waste every editor's time by overlinking (I trust you have seen the wikipedia rules by now to know what I'm talking about)! It doesn't matter how normal you consider that to be, it's careless editing in everybody else's book (so was the ungrammatical sentence already in there, but two wrongs don't make a right). Dahn 14:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Dpotop. No, that message was not mine. Danutz is another user; he has been involved quite substantially in the debate and is a sysop at the Romanian Wikipedia (see ro:Utilizator:Danutz). His e-mail signature is "", mine is "Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)". Thanks, Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 08:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi. As I have said, I do not endorse that article by any means, and think that it needs a lot of work in order to become neutral. The main problem with that reference is not whether it "summarizes well" (which is a judgment of value), but about whether it is undue weight (not because it favors one POV - professional historians on all sides tend to agree with much of the analysis -, but because it favors one historian). That is to say, I would rather have that work be source-based, and I even some sources for the period. I'll look into it when I'm done with other articles. Dahn 13:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

MO Wikipedia[edit]

I saw your post on User talk:Bogdangiusca, but I can answer your question. The wiki has been put into read only mode, so no changes can be made to that wiki. Effectively, it has been closed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sărbători Fericite![edit]

Îţi doresc Sărbători Fericite şi ca acest sfârşit de an să te găsească alături de cei dragi. Totodată îmi pare bine că în 2006 am avut ocazia să colaborez alături de tine la ceea ce este Wikipedia. roamataa Juletræslys.jpg
Crăciun Fericit şi un An Nou plin de bucurii!

Please arbitrate dispute[edit]

Hi Dpotop, maybe you can help me with this one. I tried to update the pages of Leonte Tismăneanu and Vladimir Tismăneanu by including published references to their activity. I wrote (with reference to the official document) that Leonte Tismaneanu was officially declared to be one of the main propagandists of the communist dictatorship in Romania, by the Commission presided by Vladimir Tismăneanu himself. I also addded a few precise references to printed articles by Vladimir Tismăneanu, reproduced by a newspaper and available online. Unfortunately, user Dahn consistently removes everything I write. This is quite frustrating. I wonder if one user (or 2 or 3) can just declare a newspaper to be unreliable, like Dahn does. This seems to be his "original research", because he does not present any supporting evidence. In any case, I insist that I do not want to state my personal oppinion on Tricolorul since this is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether material published in the 1970's and made available online can just be ignored because one user does not like it.

The dispute goes well beyond Tricolorul, which is not my strongest concern. For instance, he insists in using Leonte Tismăneanu instead of Tisminetki, the name of the person for the first half of his life. This is just misleading. He claims that Leonte Tismăneanu's wife was not a Party activist, despite citing himself evidence that she was "director de cadre", which is as activist as one can get. He systematically removes any hint of Tismăneanu's anti-Romanian activity at Radio Moskow during WWII (or even worse: he justifies it). Finally, he removes the historical surname Ciungul (the Crippled) invoking some fishy google statistics. This surname is documented in a scientific journal publised by the National Institute for the Study of the Totalitarianism (I included the reference in my version of Leonte Tismăneanu of Jan 2, 2007).

Dahn is totally biased concerning these two persons, to the point of raising suspicions about being personally related to them. I would suggest having him suspended from editing these two articles. (Icar 14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Salut Dpotop. Am observat interesul tău despre Transnistria, dar te concentrezi doar pe problema "Tiraspol Times". Uită-te pe pagina de discuţii, sînt multe alte probleme în suspensie la care părerea ta ar fi de folos.--MariusM 13:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re discussion on Jmabel's talk page[edit]

You'd seem to like many things -- learn some manners before demanding. Your essential requests are justified however, and I will answer. It was an honest mistake -- and as far as mistakes go, the people who make them have to assume them.

And that's what I did: I assumed my mistake, and stroke out your name, replacing it with Daos's. Please understand I would have been easy on myself editing out your name, as if I hadn't made a mistake in the first place. But I did make a mistake, and I accepted, and assumed it -- as such, I chose to strike out your name and replace it with the proper one.

By the same standards, you had no right to edit my comment. Please revert your edit.

Regarding my "reason" for making that mistake in the first place, that's simple enough: on Jmabel's talk page where the original message resided, Dahn said "Translation of the message received here from the user who left the above link" -- and you simply happened to be the last person to post a link within Jmabel's talk page, just above the message I just quoted. --Gutza T T+ 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Think what you wish of the Romanian Wikipedia. But editing someone else's comments on a talk page is not acceptable, regardless of what you have decided to think of me. --Gutza T T+ 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mulţumesc pentru barnstar.--MariusM 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


"Base word"? That's... "Dniester"?

"Pri-" means "at","by", "adjacent to" and denotes close proximity to/presence of something. The correct English preposition to describe the proximity of a region to a body of water is, in this case, "by" (I think "on" doesn't quite cut it, because "Pri", in this context, means "on one side of", otherwise it'd be just "Dnestrovie". Then again, I'm not an expert on linguistics).

Anyhow, I think the correct literal translation is "By the river Dniester". "On" and "Near" are probably okay as well, but "Under" is something better suited for the town of Kitezh. :-)

It's funny that is actually a reliable source on this issue, if you ignore the politics and only read about the linguistics. :-) --Illythr

Well, pretty much every dictionary that's worth anything at all should have a preposition in it! :-) Here, top of the google search Rambler(ru-en), (ru).
As for perspective - that's more or less correct: "Transnistria" originated in Romania and was passed to Germany (during WW2) and, later, the Western world. The Russian (or Ukrainian?) "Pridnestrovie" was passed on to the Soviet Union and from it to its proxies. Just check the transwikis to see the trend. Beware of original research, though.
I kinda wonder if countries like Japan, Singapore or Australia count as "Western", because they are "on the same side" of the Dniester, at least if we look at a standard map. :-) --Illythr 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


I am afraid you should consider this, if things deteriorate --Vintila Barbu 14:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Dahn broke the 3RR today (6 reverts in 3 hours). Should we tolerate this? Personally I find it unbearable. (Icar 14:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
Please read my message to User: AdrainTM. The last thing I want, is to create an impression of forging an alliance against Dahn: it is strictly not true. I am only pleading for more solidarity, when confronted with disruptive behaviour. It cannot be just an accident that very different editors like Icar, AdrainTM, Daizus, yourself and me are all repeatedly frustrated and outraged by the editing behaviour of another user. I am therefore suggesting more solidarity when a new conflict will occur. I am confident that this will lead to a learn process for everybody.--Vintila Barbu 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how can I reach an user by email, i.e. mine is, but how about the others ?


Hello!; I'm sorry to have reverted your contributions, but your edits were not wholly compelling. While your edits are potential improvements on the page they are not necessarily consistent with the views of the other editors there. As with any publication, standards are in place to ensure a degree of consistency for users when perusing Wikipedia, this is no different than an almanac or other compendium. I see little reason to treat your edits differently. Being bold notwithstanding, perhaps you should discuss any proposals before going ahead and implementing wholesale changes. Buffadren 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Nu stiu nimic despre ei, afara de ce scria in articolul ala care l-am folosit ca o sursa. --Thus Spake Anittas 03:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Common Projects[edit]

oh, yes...anyway, n-au intrat zilele-n sac...just wait...--Vintila Barbu 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Dpotop

The first edit of Dahn to Valter Roman [8] is two hours after my bot User:AlexNewArtBot announced it on Portal:Romania/New article announcements. I guess it is reasonable to assume that Dahn reads that board. I have looked once more into the articles he was editing with Vintila and it is my impression that it was Vintila who monitored Dahn's articles not the other way around. I will keep an eye on the matter. WP:OWN problems of some degree are common among many Wikipedia editors. On the other hand, Dahn seems to be able to work together with at least some editors e.g. User:Khoikhoi. At that moment I am not 100% convinced that Vintila stalks Dahn (otherwise I would block him), but I think it does not harm to remind a user about an important policy. Alex Bakharev 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 4 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Valter Roman, 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.

Mulţumesc for the contribution --BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here. You win. Dahn 10:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Biruitorul 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop blocked for 48 hours[edit]

See here. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anittas! It appears I have the right to edit my ow page. I'll also try to add an entry on the incident page. Dpotop 10:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't work. Dpotop 10:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Some notes, then:
  1. First of all, let me summarize what happened here: Some admin condemned me for what he sees as a Thought crime (in French "Procès d'intention) that is by assuming that my words have a different meaning than their English one, and accusing me for supposed intentions. I have also been accused without a complaint from the supposedly harmed person. Dpotop 10:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Other users call Khoikhoi using shorter versions of his name, and there has been no complaint about them: [9]. The practice of shortening names is not new on Wikipedia. I've seen it for a long time with User:Mikkalai, usually called Mikka, User:Vintila Barbu, usually called Vintila, etc.
  3. User:Dahn has a history of accusing other people of wrongfully misspelling Khoikhoi's name [10]. Note that the name used in this other accusation is the short form used by many other people on Khoikhoi's page in "friendly" posts. BTW, I have used the name Khoi in the past, and nobody felt agressed by it.
  4. The only person that felt me calling Khoikhoi "Coicoi" was User:Dahn. First, on his talk page (where he deleted my comment -- my first in weeks -- saying it was unwelcomed), and then in a discussion where he was the troll and a vandal, opposing practically all other editors with irrelevant arguments. Of course, "irrelevance" is debatable, but note that he used this argument in a discussion with a completely different subject.
  5. The block by admin Blnguyen came some time after, with no warning of any kind, no trace of complaint, no possibility of an explanation. The only accusation against me, and only point where Blnguyen cound have taken his information was Dahn's unique post in that discussion. Of course, I had contested his view on the same page, but it seems Blnguyen only saw that unique post by Dahn.
  6. I've seen User:Rama's arrow calling our discussion of Khoikhoi's behavior on ro.wikipedia "attacking Khoikhoi and badgering another user about something on the Romanian Wikipedia". I suppose Mr. Rama's arrow did not read the initial post in the thread, which made clear why User:Khoikhoi's actions on were vandalism. Vandalism like this mush be punished on sight. The simple fact of checking things again through a discussion was an act of kindness towards User:Khoikhoi.Dpotop 10:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Last, but not least, wasn't User:Blnguyen the same that overturned the last 3RR block of Dahn [11] ? Dpotop 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

the discussion on Incidents board

About User:Dahn[edit]

He stalks me, reverting immediately. Per talk page I do the right thing by reverting to consensus version (except unfortunately for Dahn who disagreees to everything but his own versions). Is there anything that can be done to stop his disruptive actions? Thanks (Icar 13:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

It's sad if this is true. Why is he stalking you BTW? --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only to me but also to User:Dpotop for instance (and to a few others), this User:Dahn is extremely incivil. If we want to change a page where he has been contributing, he takes it as a personal attack and reverts immediately. He even reverts minor edits. Strange! Do you want me to explain one aspect we (Dahn on one side, "the others" on the other side) disagree upon?(Icar 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Well, in order to believe you, can you provide me some diffs? --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Icar has left me a message because he probably feels I can understand him and bring in testimony. Indeed, I feel that User:Dahn has some disputable editing practices. But let's continue this discussion on Talk:Valter Roman. Dpotop 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

here and also [12] are just 2 examples. But if you search my contributions, you will notice that Dahn reverted them all (in exasperation I also sometimes revert, this I must admit). (Icar 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Since I was blocked 2 days ago for calling Dahn a vandal, could you please block him for doing this to me? Thanks a lot! (Icar 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

I reported him here --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I am not an admin. If this message is intended for Hizkiah, please put it on his page. :) Dpotop 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have more diffs to provide, now is the time --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to express my surprise and frustration with your participation in the badgering of Dahn started by Icar and HIZKIAH today. Even though you have POV conflicts with Dahn, surely, you must see that this particular situation (provocation, admin complaints, RfC - all within a few hours' time) stinks of a staged case really bad. I dunno about the others, but I have got an impression of you as a logical and reasonable person (well, most of the time... :-P ) and I didn't expect you to take the bait so easily. If you do have points to bring against Dahn, please, do it separately and not together with those two... strange people. Sincerely, Illythr 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time I see you siding with a known vandal (the same one, most likely). Why are you doing this? I can understand this behavior in others, but coming from you, it's a nasty surprise. :( Don't you see how bad this looks? Why not insert the changes you want into the cleaner pre-war version? The one you're reverting to still contains numerous ridiculous errors... --Illythr 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical works[edit]

Hi Jmabel,

I have a question on the sense of the expression "critical works". When you say "Critical works on X", does it mean "critical works on X's scholarly works", or "all scholarly books on X"? Or is there a nuance I still miss?

Thanks, Dpotop 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ambiguous, but it would tend toward the broader meaning. "Literary criticism" for example is criticism of writing, mainly of fiction. But adding to the problem, in some contexts "critical" means only things that disagree with the original, and in others it means all commentary, favorable or otherwise. - Jmabel | Talk 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC against User:Dahn[edit] I need also two users to certify this...--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Banning HIZKIAH as Bonaparte's sockpuppet[edit]

How can we ask for a check? This looks suspicious and abusive to me. -- AdrianTM 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Confirmed. Khoikhoi 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked me: I have no particular knowledge on this: I have no access to checkuser. On the one hand, editing from the same place doesn't clinch it if patterns are dissimilar, but on the other hand I've always been convinced that there was more to Bonaparte than he was choosing to show, so nothing would really surprise me on that front. Sorry I don't really have anything to add. - Jmabel | Talk 00:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Typo on your user page: "castity" should be "chastity". I'd have fixed it myself, but I know that editing user pages is generally considered impolite. - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, could you check your e-mail.--Domitius 17:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ceva cu religie[edit]

I've never heard of the term Moldovanness before and I'm afraid I can't help you on that subject. I'm not religious and writing about those guys and their organized religion doesn't appeal to me. Good luck, tho. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Some readings[edit]

I just stumbled upon this page, maybe it will have some useful info.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


First, I never referred to MariusM as a vandal. He has a strong political POV on the issue ("Heaven of Transnistria" and all), but I never saw him actually disrupting Wikipedia for the sake of disruption. I was talking about Mr. Sure Entry. Unless you know something I don't, that is. ;-)

I'm complaining not on your opinion or behavior, but on that you sided with someone, whose purpose is obvious POV-pushing with total disregard towards any other opinion. Maybe it's so obvious only to me (opposed POV and all), but come on, as soon as HIZKIAH began lecturing Dahn on how to treat his mental problems it was pretty clear that this person chooses to ignore WP:AGF on purpose.

Blocking of Marius: I find some kind of morbid justice being served in the whole issue, considering that it was MariusM who reported (resulting in blocking, albeit short-lived, of) Pernambuco, who was goaded into violating 3RR by BonnieGirl in a similar setup before. Aside from that, I think that the 3 weeks' punishment was too harsh, but it was reduced to 1 week now. Which (I think) is more due to Marius' edit warring than his violation of 3RR. After all, Marius had waited only about two hours before introducing those changes of his, resulting in that particular edit war. Additionally, Pernambuco got blocked (back then) for reverting Bonny, who was doing his usual stuff (that's the reason for his early release, btw), whereas all Kertu did was revert Marius. Having said that, I am greatly saddened by seeing Pernambuco adopt the tactics of the opposition. While that weird Mark Street character didn't manage to gain any reputation to lose in my eyes, Pernambuco did. Such a shame. :-(

Siding: As I had already explained to EvilAlex on his talk page, I don't take sides. That is, I try not to. However, seeing my opposition resort to all sorts of nasty tricks, like 3RR goading, vote stacking and meat puppetry for 3RR avoidance (with lame cover up attempts), as well as all sorts of trolling and pathos, does give me that false fuzzy feeling of being right... sometimes. I mean, having the likes of Bonny among the ranks of the opposition has to be pretty reassuring for one's moral compass, don't you think? ;-) Pernambuco's sockpuppetry was like a cold shower in this sense.

William: Yes, am am aware of his POV. But he is much more subtle. You can actually talk to him and be heard. (Bonaparte, on the other hand, never listens. That's how he gets caught all the time... almost) I think he makes a good Devil's Advocate on the topic. I also think he should cut down on TT reffing... :-)

Summary: I think Marius' long absence was indeed capitalized upon. A large part of his proposal was ok and could've been implemented with a bit of coaxing. My big issue with the whole thing is that starting an edit war and later accepting aid from a vandal to make things right is not the way to fix the problem! Don't you understand that this will allow (bah, already has) your opposition to shift the focus from analysing the actual content to countering reverts to a vandalized version, making everybody's Stings glow blue, so to speak? ;-)

PS: I have revised the version you reverted to and must partially (yeah! :-P ) apologise: the LATER version "by SmackBot" already had most of the obvious crap removed. But still, "military aggression", the names thing, removal of the religion section along with other details, etc? Aww.

PPS: Have you considered archiving your talk page? It's been almost two productive years... ;-) --Illythr 00:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Case of Mauco[edit]

(copied from ANB) Sorry to say, but you did not read the posts here. Nobody claims that User:MaucoWilliamPernambuco is Mauco. Your post is based on false assumptions. Dpotop 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade changed Mauco's block to indefinite because he assumed that all those disruptive socks and IPs are indeed Mauco's. So, jamason's post was dead on, whereas yours was... how did you put it once... uninformed. --Illythr 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not hold it against you. I only would like to ask you to be more careful in the future. Didn't your mom tell you not to accept candy from strange sockpuppets? ;-) --Illythr 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Sorry for not inviting you - that was quite accidental.
By the way, in the Paschal spirit, I did Justinian Marina. It still needs lots of work, but maybe you'd like to take a look. One thing I'd like to suggest, though: "Mitropolie" is "Metropolitanate" in English, not "Metropolis" (which refers to big cities), so I think "Metropolis of Bessarabia" ought to be moved. Biruitorul 16:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Again my apologies: it seems both are in use. A couple of other Wikipedia articles use Metropolitanate, though, so maybe we should agree on a common standard. Biruitorul 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Soviet occupation of Romania [13][edit]

Filed. Please confirm awareness. -- Biruitorul 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

Info-icon.svg A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
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.
This message delivered: 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


Im very sorry, i did not notice. My fault. Ldingley 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case[edit]

The case is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria; most of the beef is currently at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence. Sorry, I thought everybody was by now aware of that case and everybody was more or less involved there. You can always find a list of current Arbcom cases at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Fut.Perf. 09:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Traian Băsescu[edit]

Hi, if you are or will be on WP these days, may I ask you to please watch Traian Băsescu, giben that it is tagged a current event. I and Dl.goe have copyedited recently some sections of the article, then an old acquentence has rv it. If you feel like copy editting it, please be my guest. I will not mind if someone edits, even massively, incl what you might guess i would disagree, as long as it is honest copyedit, not blant rv without even reading. If you have time and interest...:Dc76 16:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right about sub-section, but do you think this is so important as take 5% of the volume of the article Basescu? I leave it to your judgement. Maybe, it is important for 1 week, but after that... :Dc76 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[14] Perhaps a week, but after that I see no reason to keep it longer in the main article, when there is a specialized one. ok, i leave it to your judgement.:Dc76 21:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Valter Roman[edit]

Sorry, my reaction was mainly to Dl.goe's edits, which replaced a text by Dahn that has maybe 2-3 details that need to be fixed, but otherwise is stylistically well written, with a poorley written text (of intro) that for the price of fixing some of those details distroys other things. I don't believe that in order to improve something, one needs to destroy other things, as I got the impression from his edits. As for the point you bring in, that makes sense, I do agree. However let me share a personal convinction of mine: it is always possible for an intelligent person to achieve a goal through other ways if a direct one doesn't work. Only a primitive person believes there is only one path. Direct confrontation, unless it is an absolutely clear black-white case (as for example in Soviet occupation denialism), is always a sign of shortness of virtue.

Specifically: I understand that Dahn wants to be clear that Valter Roman was a politician in Romania for at least half of his political life, and that you want that the article does not put more importance on Romanian than on communist, and especially to be clear that Romanian is not used in an ethnical sense. So, IMO the two oppinions are not totally opposite, and something like

Valter Roman was a comintern cadre and a politician in Communist Romania

should work. Of course, it requires that both sides, Dahn including, be open to reformulation. In the case of Horty and other guys, it is written exactly like this, politician in Hungary, [specific office] of Hungary etc. In the case of Maniu and Vaida-Voevod, I personally would definitevely like to see a politician in Austia-Hungary and Romania or something similar, to be clear that they had important political contributions in both contexts.

I do understand you about the personal character that Dahn brings in an interaction with him. He is not an open person, and I have had my share of confrontation with him (we even seeked mediation anf accused each other of personal attacks). But all that appart, he does contribute to WP in a positive way, he brings a lot of info. I would rather have info that needs a few edits than not have it altogether. Dahn is not stupid, and a non-stupid person will eventually understand if you find the right approach. Also he will not like if out of a discussion with him you come out more intelligent. Use this to your advantage! He will easier give up something if he shows intelligence by giving up. He is unlikely to give up if you directly oppose him, even if the case is 2/3 in your favour. Let me make a comparison, maybe it is a lame one: Gerhard Schroeder vs Willy Brandt. There is no way you can convince the first one. But the second one was intelligent, you just need the right approach.

If you ask me in general whether the nationality should be given or not given explicitely in articles, whether this should be a WP standard, I sincerely don't know! How is it in Britannica and in other encyclopedias? I am inclined to follow the existing conventions unless there is strong case not to.:Dc76 12:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Transylvania[edit]

[15] I think, if you explain her, she will understand, and good edits can be found. She's never been a POV pusher, quite the opposite.:Dc76 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Salut! Am observat ca aţi fost activ(ă) la articole despre Moldova (indiferent de ce mal al Prutului este vorba), sau despre regiunea Cernăuţi, sau despre Bugeac, sau despre Transnistria istorică. Dacă nu sunteţi indiferent şi vă interesează să contribuiţi la articole despre sau cu relevanţă pentru Republica Moldova, vă rog adăugaţi-vă numele la Noticeboard of the wikipedians from or interested in Moldova. Am vrea:

  • să facem o inventariere a articolelor legate de Moldova, în special
    • să le punem în categoriile corecte
    • să identificăm sute de articole WP existente cu relevanţă despre Moldova şi la cele care nu au, să le adăugăm [[Category:Moldova]].
  • în paralel am vrea să facem acelaşi lucru cu cele legate de regiunea Cernăuţi, Bugeac şi Transnistria
  • să menţinem portalul Portal:Moldova, în special
    • să identificăm câteva articole bune, care ar putea deveni "featured"
    • să completăm "Did you know" la cel puţin 200 de intrări
    • să adăugăm Wikinews despre Moldova
  • orice altceva ce vă interesează şi are legatură cu Moldova

Daca puteti contribui in medie o data pe saptamana cu o editare despre Moldova, ar fi excelent! Vă mulţumesc frumos si sper sa raspundeti. :Dc76 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Copying comments[edit]

Hello again. Instead of copy and pasting the exact same comment to each individual arbitrator, why not enter it in one place, like the arbitration talk page and address it to all of them collectively? It seems a bit excessive. Please consider doing so. Thanks. El_C 12:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, MariusM is getting his reputation back from the arbitration case. However, I'd recommmend him, when this would be over to take a 1-week break from WP. It is time for him and you to stop viewing Alaexis and ElC as Mauco and MarcStreet defenders, and for Alaexis, ElC and Illythr to stop viewing you and MariusM as Bonaparte defenders. Let's discriminate between people who have a political oppinion (albeit maybe a comepletely wrong one), but can act in a civilized manner and eventually accept a logical thing from those who are paid to promote certain interests or from vandals. Let me emphasize can, b/c right now they/all not always do, but they show that it does not take them supernatural effort to concentrate on the issues/edits and not see personal attacks left and right.

About EvelAlex, I am sorry that he got cought in the same bowl with Mauco and Marc Street, it seems that he will be blocked at least from Transnistria-related contributions. His "guilt" lies only in reverting Mauco, but unfortunately he did it in a way that to arbitrators seemed a bit agressive. I think he can ask to be let to contribute on WP in Transnistria-non-realted issues (e.g. articles about Moldova, except those in category Transnistria, could use his help), and after a year if he has shown that he has not engaged in any revert war to ask for a parole to be allowed to contribute under supervision to Transnistria related topics. Even if proven not guilty to arbitrators, I would still advise to ask him to keep out of Transnistria related topics for several months. His shire presense at this point would incite the debate. If I were him, I'd "officially" withdraw at least for 1 year from Transnistria-related edits. But that is me. For me it is more important not to be associated with someone like Mauco, Marc Street or Bonaparte, b/c I know that I can get the rest in time by other means. But it is easy for me to talk, I am not from Tighina.:Dc76 16:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

An edit[edit]

Am corectat (elaborat) aceasta modificare facuta de tine, tocmai din Ianuarie 2006 (de atunci articolul a fost tradus in Franceza, Germana, etc.). Pe viitor, ori ai grija la continutul editarilor tale, ori inceteaza sa faci asemenea adaugari!!!! Tie chiar nu ti s-a parut nimic in neregula sa-i listezi pe romani alaturi de handicapati mentali, schizofrenici si retardati printre cei ce au fost sterilizati de-a lungul timpului? Asta fara sa dai alte detalii. Ca si cum ei au fost sterilizati pentru ca erau romani si atat. Ai grija! Kentzzel 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Council of Europe[edit]

Are you sure the document on prisoners was "stamped" by the EU Parliamentary Assembly? The Council of Europe is independent of the EU, and is not to be confused with the European Council, or Council of the European Union. --KIDB 11:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here --KIDB 13:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Canvassing usually suggests attempting to get people to vote the way you do. Dahn was merely asking my opinion.

  1. He was a Romanian citizen
  2. He was a member of the PCR (thus a Romanian Communist)
  3. He lived in Romania

I'm not particularly interested in ideas of 'race' or 'purity of ethnicity', so there is no need to argue that. - Francis Tyers · 15:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Einstein nationality[edit]

This has been thoroughly debated in Talk:Albert Einstein (including in its archives). The consensus was that Einstein's nationality is too complex to capture in a word or two, and so the full list of citizenships and "ethnicity" is given in the Infobox with details in the main text. The only reasons there is even a mention of "German-born" in the lead sentence are (a) it hints at the more complex history and (b) it explains why there is a German pronunciation link immediately preceding. The consensus wording was a compromise that seems to have ended the editing wars that always spring up once people start laying claim to Einstein.

Violation of 3RR[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Anonimu 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)