User talk:Friedfish/Archive 2006Q3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Friedfish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mallorca 060817-060823

Yes I do like contributing to wikipedia but not when people like you delete my hard work. What the hell are you doing? I put hours of work into this article and a lot of it has been deleted. The article looks CRAP now. WHY??????? James Janderson 09:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but I don'y get it are you missing the point? The idea of the wiki project is for all the projects to work togther and fit together, so what is the problem with using commons images to illustrate an article? Pointless. James Janderson 09:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Three (at least) sections reproduced previous Wiki articles, namely Palma de Mallorca, RCD Mallorca & Ensaimada; lot's of work has been put into these articles - the link for Palma is disambiguous - for pictures, well, refer to WikiPolicies in the Help section and also WP:NOT; - maybe you should use the "Sandbox" for ideas which are still incomplete (e.g. trams, education and religion) see WP:SB - the history section I'm having checked through, but a concern would be the lack of referencing; Josep Trueta, for example, could be a good source of information. Please refrain from insults and bad language! ...and the more I look at your edits, I'm not sure what you added besides the pictures. The history of Palma de Mallorca is a rough translation of this page - [1], which plagiarised Snr Treuta - which was added over six months ago. → friedfish 11:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(-Test1a-) It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Mallorca. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 07:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

SUPP --- Photos removed, copy-edited Mallorca history which improved my Catalan, if little else; James Janderson conquered (edited) the world as SPECTRE agent...

Magalluf / Magaluf 060828-060828

I really like the work you're doing with Mallorca related articles (...but I'm the one who restored the tourist stuff on ext. links, as I feel tourist info is relevant for foreign people looking for info about Mallorca). The thing: pls see Magaluf history (or safe your time:

>>MagaLuf - who came up with the LL version??? The LL version is the real one. The real name is Magalluf, but Magaluf is so widely extended that every one accepts it. Drive to Magalluf by the highway and follow the indications: there's no Magaluf. It's the same discussion as Majorca & Mallorca: most British say Majorca, but it's Mallorca. Same for Magal(ll)uf.").

The article was originally written by someone looking to promote a website, and funny enough it was a British which spelled Magalluf, the right word. If you look at www.caib.es, Magalluf comes up one time by a Spanish institution, and Magaluf once more by an English college.

So, Magalluf is less used, but is the right one.

I'm an anonymous which just looks for some entries directly related to mine to be true, and who doesn't know how to change it. But it would be very much appreciated if you do it. 81.37.133.89 00:28, 28 August 2006

Maybe some photo of an Autopista sign could come in useful; when I was living on Mallorca I must admit I didn't stop by Maga--uf too much so don't remember the sign. Nonetheless the Ajuntament use the L version [2] and the bus maps certainly do - the difference between Mallorca and Majorca (and Maiorca) is pronounciation: LL is pronounced moreorless like J or Y in Spanish and like "lli" in million in Catalan, this wouldn't be the case for MagaJuf. Do you think that maybe this is how it got onto the various websites - one website that was/is listed on external links refers to both Magaluf and Magalluf, and could be why they got the domain name - spot the difference between either magaluf-palmanova.com or palmanova-magaluf.com and magalluf-palmanova.com or palmanova-magalluf.com → friedfish 07:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

SUPP --- If they haven't already been pulled down, waiting for photo of Magallllluf sign...

Ion Antonescu 060823-060829

Dangers of wikipedia - inflammming nationalism and revisionism. After a few copy-edit and attempts at neutalising WP:NPOV, sneaky vandalism starts. Which then a user from Piatra Neamt started reverting the article without going to discussion page for their POV...but then giving them a taste of their own medicine...

To avoid further WP:EW, could 194.117.231.39 (talk · contribs) explain why the following comments are (repeatedly since [3]) added to the text concerning Ion Antonescu. The article should have WP:NPOV whereas these comment seems to be from work of apologist Iosif Constantin Dragan in 1993 article.

"in 1918 Romania had to make peace with Germany and her allies. At the same time, Antonescu sent two divisions into Bassarabia to restore order to a region brought into chaos by the disorderly Russian retreat."

"With France's defeat and Great Britain's isolation, Antonescu had no other choice than an alliance with Nazi Germany"

"because Antonescu knew that the war against the Soviests would lead to Romania's regaining of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, territories lost to the Soviet Union in June 1940. Also, by participating in the war on the Eastern front, beyond the historical borders of Romania, Antonescu hoped to persuade Hitler to give back the northern half of Transylvania"

"He couldn't do in one year what the political class had ignored in 20 (in the interbelic period, Romania had the smallest % army budget in Europe)."

"A few days later, the Soviets occupied (the term "liberated" was used by that time's propaganda) Bucharest."

"The only things he wasn't found guilty of were claiming a fortune of his years of government and of Romania's war against the Soviet Union. Like all trials having taken place durring the Communist Regime, the "Trial of Great National Treason" - as it was called by the time's media - has many questionable aspects. Ion Antonescu was sentenced to death six times and executed "

"In 1941, following the advancing Romanian Army and the attacks by Jewish "Resistance groups" (jews had also sympatized with the the occuping Soviet Army in 1940, shoothing and sometimes killing retreating Romanian soldiers in Bassarabian towns with a large jewish population like Edinet or Ismail)"

"However Antonescu, did not apply the "final solution" on Romanian territory, like other German-alllied states did, nor did he send Romanian jews to German extermination camps. Romania even sheltered jews from other countries, like Poland and Czechoslovakia, refusing to turn them over to the Germans."

Perhaps you could express your views more clearly on this talk page. → friedfish 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm repeatedly adding them because you continualy deleate them. i don't think citing JC Dragan is illeagal on this site. However all the words are mine, based on various sources (the last 3). I'll answer to you questions, in hope you won't delete these lines any longer.

1 is a fact. the Russians were leaving the front and plundering Chisinau, when the National Council asked Romania for help. It was Antonescu, from his position in the army, that sent troops into Bassarabia to disarm the Russians and restore order.

2 GB and France were traditional allies of Romania. However, in 1940 Romania could expect no aid from these countries, given the situation in the West. Germany was the only state able to guarantee the frail borders of Romania, and also the only one that could help Romania regain the lost territories to the Soviet Union.

3 This was not only the will of Antonescu, but of the entire Romanian people, who wished to redeem themselves for giving up Bassarabia and norther Bukovina without a fight one year before.

4 Another fact. Antonescu tried to reform the army in the 30s while he had important functions like Chief of Army Staff, but faced with the lack of funds, he quit, motivating that he wouldn't want to be responsable for the collapse of Romania's borders.

5 Yes, the Russians actually occupied Romania, and stayed for 13 years. Yet Romania continued to celebrate her "liberation" by her big brother from the East for 45 years.

6 another fact: from all charges, those were the only ones he was not found guilty of. As for the second part, I don't know where to start really. I think it's enough to say that the whole institution of the People's Tribunal was ilegal, as a tool of the Government, because it conflicts with the constitutional priciple of Separation of powers, or that the sentences conflicted with the principle of Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, again from the Constitution.

7 This is from a testimony of G. Magherescu, who participated as a soldier to the Romanian withdraw form Bassarabia in 1940. You can find it the book "Antonescu" by your beloved JC Dragan.

8 All facts: no extermination camps on Romanian territory, Romanian jews sent to German extermination camps were from Hungarian occupied Transylvania. No jews were sent from Romania to German extermination camps, thus including the refugees form neighbouring countries. If we have a section about the Holocaust under Antonescu, then let's say the good things too, not only the bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.231.39 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for expressing your views. Are you aware of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania. Presumably, for example, the events at Iasi and Odessa were "preventive" measures. → friedfish 09:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SUPP --- Crash course in Romanian nationalist politics. History rewritten; Romanian pro-fascist leaders were basically misunderstood and only had to perpetuate their atrocities because GB and France couldn't help them out... Still a whole lot better since my first edit a couple of weeks back. Lesson learnt: Be bold; provoke the provokers!!!