User talk:Anittas/ArchiveVIII

Thanks!
Thanks for the award! By the way, it's great to have you back! · AO Talk 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supporting too. I forgot to tell you, but I guess you had it on your watchlist anyway. :) · AO Talk 10:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I do. Good job on the article. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Báthory
Well, there's this, and this. If you find them unreliable, you can remove the dates. Biruitorul 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Biruitorul 19:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Magyarabs
No, I'm a Hungarian from "Transylvania" ... regards --fz22 06:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

CMR
Salut Anittas. Tu ai ceva date despre oroarea asta, Comunitatea Moldovenilor din Romania? Dpotop 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh
Anittas, I have that page on my watchlist for years now. Be a little more reserved, please. Dahn 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anittas, with all due excuses for intruding, I cannot help wondering about what are you urged to be more reserved ?!--Vintilă Barbu 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a petty thing, but that wasn't what got to me. I'll rather not say anything else on this matter. I don't want trouble. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Baia on DYK for 9 March 2007
Thank you for your contribution! &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF?
Anonimu 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have canceled my requests. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Vaslui
I have fixed the references tags there. Please correct me if it isn't pointed to the correct reference. — Moe  22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, I don't know. I actually didn't know that all I did was add a space and it worked, maybe it confuses the code, or something.. — Moe  23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis of Bessarabia
Hello, I saw you are promoting Moldovanness. Let's write this article well, because it's important. I created it, added and corrected some data on ro:Mitropolia Basarabiei, and found some good sources. Now, most of the work should go into correcting the article on ro.wiki, and translating it into English (which may be difficult because of religious terms). Dpotop 10:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Night Attack
Hi Anittas. Really sorry, i made a little mistake in editing the article. I initially wanted to add the tag for "azabs (the pikemen)" because the irregular azap infantry usually carried bows, sabers and shields, i have never heard about azaps/pikemen. But this is not so important, i was a little curious that is all. "Trouble making" is really not a part of my character. Regards. Lysandros 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The info was taken from the book. If it's wrong, it is a small error that can be corrected without the need for the CT tag, as the whole paragraph is sourced. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage
Hope you don't mind, but I changed some innapropriate wording on your page. It was probably vandalism. :) · AO Talk 10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I think you're too kind and I humbly accept your credentials, altough my best contribution for the article was of moral support. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry. Yes, the BBC source is okay. Dahn 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with policy - user talk pages
I appreciate your support regarding the dispute over User Talk Pages with Rlevse. You mentioned a previous incident where a final ruling was issued on the matter regarding one's rights to remove warnings from his own User Talk page. Do you have any more information about this, such as a WP page where an administrator of WP could be seen issuing the ruling? This would be helpful in settling the dispute quickly. Thanks. --Tjsynkral 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal
Nice work on the Ottoman Portal. Is it really so that you chose the Vaslui battle as the first event to the portal? Either way, it's an honour to have the article added there. Keep up the good work. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Anittas. Thanks for your comment. Actually the Battle of Vaslui is a well referenced and organized article with a GA rating. I also tried to focus on events that happened in different time periods. Tell me, how is the portal is generated on your browser. I have some problems w/ the layout sometimes but i am not sure if it is my browser or not. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yeah, but that's not what I asked. :p I also have some problems with the layout: since the events are shifting, some articles are listed below the other articles, instead of filling the whole page in an organized way. I suggest you get rid of the shifting technique -- unless you can control it --, and manually place and change the first-page events. You may have better control over the layout, as you can decide what template to go right, or what photo to go left. Your userpage is also having some difficulties in showing everything. I don't know much about Portals, but you can check other portals and see what they did and ask them for advice, in case you need it. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The layout is the same as of Portal:Italian Wars. I've just asked Kirill for help. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Speriat?
Eşti cam speriat după permabanul de care abia ai scăpat. Chestia e că sînt atît de multe dovezi anti-Mauco încît oricine ar face raport contra mea va populariza la sfere înalte şi faptele lui Mauco. Ceea ce nu prea convine "celeilalte părţi". Dacă ai ceva să-mi spui mai bine foloseşte e-mailul. Paşte fericit!--MariusM 11:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ukwiki
A UK Wiki? What's that? --Thus Spake Anittas 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian Wikipedia, http://uk.wikipedia.org :-) — Alex(T 10:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh! I should have thought of that. I was thinking about United Kingdom and found it strange that they would have their own Wiki, when English is used here. Bah! --Thus Spake Anittas 10:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

it dependsAnonimu 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC) .you became an "agnostic" because of some old women. what could you know....Anonimu 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Outing personal information
I don't know that trying to find out someone's real name is something we could block or ban for (unless you were being disruptive by asking or demanding it, anyway). But posting personal information about another editor, such as his or her real name, which that editor has not chosen to reveal? You bet we'll show someone the door for that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would likely fall under WP:HARASS and WP:STALK. But it also falls under WP:SENSE and WP:POINT. Our policies are not a rigid legal system which we will not deviate an inch from even if someone finds a loophole and exploits the hell out of it. If someone obviously intends to disrupt or harass another editor, they will be blocked, whether or not Line 5 Subparagraph C specifically forbids exactly the method they're using or not. And there are few things more disruptive or harassing than to reveal someone's personal, private information against that person's wishes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that applies regardless of where you got it. In brief: If an editor wants to reveal information about himself or herself, that person will do so, and will choose the extent and manner to which he or she does so. If that person has not done so, it is not your place to "help" them do so, regardless of how you came to know more than they have revealed. In short: Don't reveal personal information about anyone but yourself. Ever. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: User impersonation of Jimbo (message on his talk page)
Hi Anittas. To clarify (and ShakepeareFan00 was also in room when this occurred) - the user changed his nick aftre being kicked once by FrancoGG, one of the channel admins. He then came back into the room under the nick JimboWales7, introduced himself and said "Hello I'm Jimbo." at which point, FrancoGG asked "Jimbo" to identify himself using the special IRC cloak which only Jimbo can use and show up with. He refused/failed to do so. - Unfortunately, as public logging of all wikimedia channels is forbidden, we have no evidentiary proof, other than those present in the room at the time giving their own statements to the effect. JimboWales7 was kicked by personal request, and his IP K-Lined after I spoke to one of the Freenode Serior Administrators, Christel Dahlskjær. Hope this clarifys things for you. Thor Malmjursson 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, really
Why not actually read the rule next time around? Dahn 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Anittas, I never broke the rule in the first place (prove me wrong). I am just quite tired of having to deal with your rhetoric over such a stupid little issue, and hope that more users will have the good sense of reverting you. Dahn 23:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's perfect. And, yes, I clearly do have a superior approach. Dahn 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Duck test
Sorry, typo, now corrected. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard 09:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes
Yes I do. One. And I don't really consider it a userbox per se. To me, a userbox is "I am a Republican" or "I use Windows XP". What I have is useful and Wikipedia specific. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Project
Still trying to think of something. I'm helping out at Age of Empires III, but not too much. I guess it'll find me... eventually... hopefully... :) · AndonicO Talk 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, I don't think I can burn out on wikipedia. It's preposterous. Although I heard you might fry your brain if you respond to messages too quickly; don't know where I read that though. ;) · AndonicO Talk 20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle at Csonthegy

 * Be serious, why should I ignore you?
 * There are no other names for this battle, AFAIK. Maybe Kölesd-Csonthegy ... I will create a stub for it, but not these days. Regards --fz22 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Despre Dahn
mare drac Dahn asta, falsifica istoria cum vrea si pornit tare contra romanilor. E un antiroman din cei mai rai. Faptul ca nu accepta ca Bogadan I era valah si sterge tot timpul astfel de afirmatii demonstreaza ca e cu intentii rele pe wiki.
 * Paca la urma, a acceptat. Chiar daca este el asa cum este, sa fim mandri totusi, ca un strain este asa de interesat in istoria noasta. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message
I know them both slightly (not keen on either of them [understatement]); I doubt if I can help, but what's your question? --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 08:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but, as I expected, I can't answer your question (except to say that Nietzsche is full of nonsense like this, and personally I'd spend my time reading some real philosophy). If I can think of anyone who's likely to know more I'll let you know, but no-one springs to mind I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd find one or two philosophers in Oxford who teach Nietzsche, but I know of no-one with a genuine interest, or who admires him as a philosopher (he's read in literature departments rather than by philosophers).
 * Your conclusions about my primary interests are off-target I'm afraid, as is your assumption about the source of my opinion of Nietzsche. You seem to think that because I don't think much of Nietzsche and you do, I must be deficient as a philosopher &mdash; an oddly unphilosophical view... --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 08:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mesaj
Salutari din Moldova din dreapta Prutului! Am vazut ca te preocupa istoria Moldovei si ca ti se pun piedici. Pentru ca nu stiu engleza nu pot sa te ajut, insa pot sa-ti dau niste surse pretioase de unde poti descarca gratuit carti si la care sa faci referire. Sa nu uiti de erate atunci cand citesti cartile!!! Spor la treaba! PS: Nu prea inteleg de ce unii care nu cunosc istoria românilor se baga in seama dorind sa falsifice istoria noastra. Probabil din rautate.
 * Unibuc CLASSICA, University of Bucharest
 * Bogdan I Intemeietorul
 * Va salut. Multumesc pentru link. Am dat cu ochii pe site si pare destul de bun. Am sa ma uit mai bine pe el in weekend. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:57, 21 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: 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 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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

Candide Part II
You're quite right. In my research I too have found valid sources for all of your claims in that paragraph, so I do think it should stay. -- Rmrfstar 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think Candide, Part II is looking very good. I shall be glad to use some more of its information in Candide; because that paragraph you wrote should even be expanded a bit. -- Rmrfstar 13:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Antonescu
I will defend Antonescu to the extent he deserves being defended: no more, no less. "Dacă aş fi fost învingător, aş fi avut statui în fiecare oraş al României". He tried and failed, but at least he tried. I am a perfectly ordinary layman of the Romanian Orthodox Church, and will ask you to cease the personal attacks. You are in no position to declare God dead, and two can play at this game: 'Nebunul zice în inima lui: "Nu este Dumnezeu!"' (Pss. 14:1). Biruitorul 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Anittas: please be so kind as to refrain from gratuitously snide comments like "stop being such a Christian fanatic." I don't see how saying things like that helps anything in the slightest. Please behave like an intelligent adult and display some respect for your fellow Wikipedians even if you disagree with them. Thank you, K. Lásztocska 05:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-semetic" isn't a word. Even if I were that, you wouldn't expect me to say, "Yes, sir, of course I'm an anti-Semite" - would you? He deserves credit for his good-faith attempt to retake stolen Romanian territory and liberate it from Bolshevism. He failed, and he did much that was reprehensible in the attempt, but like I said, he at least tried something. No man is 100% good (except Christ and, in a sense, His mother), but none is totally evil either and I think we're better served by a balanced rather than a caricatured portrayal of the man. Biruitorul 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a fair position. I've never tried justifying his crimes; others have, and it should be avoided. By the way, Transylvanians and Wallachians are also Romanians; it is not the case that only Moldavians or Moldovans are "true" Romanians. Biruitorul 19:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's just say I have ancestry from many parts of the country, so I find such regional disputes silly and counterproductive. More importantly, what about Wallachians? Biruitorul 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

hello from the rouge wiki-moralizer
I'm sorry if I offended you by my insistence that Wikipedians at least make an attempt to treat each other with respect and common courtesy. Or by being a Hungarian who has the gall to hang around with Romanians. Whichever it was. You do have a point though, in that I was being annoying. To that end, I will hereafter cease and desist posting on Anonimu's talk page. K. Lásztocska 00:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded on Anonimu's talkpage. I think you're taking this too seriously. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm most definitely taking it too seriously. I've been having a rather crappy day...and my real-life mood has a marked tendency to spill over into my edits. Anyway, I'd just as soon forget the whole thing ever happened. Apologies for any rudeness or untoward aggressiveness on my part. K. Lásztocska 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to apologize for anything. Like I told you about Anonimu's message: it's no big deal. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Candide
I'd really appreciate it if you would re-read the documentation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It seems to be that you are bent on bolstering Voltaire's image wherever possible in this article, and it is very frustrating for me to spend so much time on minor things like comments and wording that don't make out Voltaire to be a saint. Perhaps you should also check Verifiability. I think if you better understood these policies, you'd understand better where I am coming from. Thank you. -- Rmrfstar 11:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Have I made statements on Candide and Voltaire without using sources? Why then direct me to wiki Verfifiability? And I who thought that you were a fellow Voltairean. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to dash your dreams; but, no, I'm not a "Voltairean". I aim to be as impartial as possible in my exposition on Candide. While I appreciate your help on Candide we are in no way fellow Voltaireans here to praise the object of your worship. That I like Voltaire and Candide personally is irrelevant to my editing (ideally).


 * I never said you made statements without sources. The reason I directed you to WP:V is I thought you should understand what constitutes a valid, citeable source and how a statement should be used. As I states, you seem to have some misconceptions about these definitions as per your argument on Talk:Candide. If you don't understand to what I'm referring, you should re-read the page, I think. -- Rmrfstar 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will stay away. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: GA
Ha, I didn't look at the main authors. But there is no doubt that you do good job :) Keep it up! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Baia GA on hold
Nehrams2020 19:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally we are not supposed to, but with these circumstances, I'll do it. Please finish as soon as you can. Enjoy your vacation. --Nehrams2020 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Might and Magic
Re your comments on my talk page about Might and Magic: I have not played Dark Messiah of Might and Magic as my home computer does not meet the requirements - it's really more suited for playing MM1! I have read elsewhere that it is more of an action game than RPG, and there is no reference in it to the classic Might and Magic continuity. So I'm in no hurry. BreathingMeat 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Ro
Multumesc de informatie! Ma voi uita peste Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, dar sa stii ca eu ma ocup de obicei aici pe wikipedia, doar de chestiuni militare, sau legate de istorie si aviatie. Articolul pe care l-am promovat la GA este de fapt Romanian Land Forces. In scurt timp voi cere un A-class review pentru Ro Land Forces, poate ai dori sa ma ajuti - oricum, obiectivul meu este sa devina in viitorul oarecum apropiat un FA. Poti sa te uiti peste user page-ul meu si vei vedea detalii despre contributiile mele - am creat de asemenea numeroase articole despre diverse unitati militare, care pot fi dezvoltate. Numai bune, --Eurocopter tigre

Excommunication
Actually his own bishop -- Teodosie Petrescu, Archbishop of Tomis -- could do that. I'm sure Teodosie (himself a former Securitate collaborator) would be very interested in his case. However, we don't know Anonimu's identity, and I for one have no interest in attempting to find that out. If God deems it necessary, he will answer for his Communist beliefs at the Last Judgment. Biruitorul 22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Well, he won't be anonymous to God. Let us hope God really exists, just so Anonymous can get his punishment. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mai degrabă-și va întoarce Dunărea cursul indărăpt Anonimu 09:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu User Page

 * Hello and thank you for your e-mail. Personal attacks are not allowed on userpages and as administrators we have a responsibility to remove any such attacks. Please see WP:Userpage regarding the issue of what a user is allowed to put on his userpage. I should add that the block has been reviewed by User:Yamla and his unblock request has been denied. I also will not unblock him. If you still feel that he should be unblocked please take the discussion to WP:AN/I. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 12:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: this whole silliness, thank you for the heads-up. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, np. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu again
I was intending to last night, but couldn't think who to talk to. (The ANI discussion had swerved away from Anonimu and into a discussion of userbox censorship, and I didn't want my point to get lost in that.) Maybe I'll tell an uninvolved admin (I'm thinking of User:NCurse) about the situation and ask him to take a look at it--frankly, if I were an admin, I'd be inclined to just unblock him straightaway, as the more I think about it the more obvious it becomes that this was an unfair and unjustified block. (He was being obnoxious, but that's hardly a blockable offense...and frankly, the other side in that banner-war wasn't behaving much better.) Thanks for spurring me to action, I'm off to see if I can help sort this mess out. K. Lásztocska Review me? 14:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I could "try to get him unblocked", anyway, I'm not going to campaign for (or against) him. I aired my concerns on ANI and to NCurse, and if as I suspect this was an unfair block, he will be unblocked. I've done what I can, unless you have other ideas. K. Lásztocska Review me? 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Brandt
Trolling and defamatory comments are never acceptable on Wikipedia, whether in an article or on a talk page. Your restoring of such with edit summaries that seem to imply acceptance of these things as OK is extremely troubling. Please don't restore such information in the future. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bathory Numerals
Anittas, I found a book with much information on that family. It uses numerals for the various members of the family, going across the border of the two branches. This would enable us to clearly identify the various Stephens, Georges and Andrews. I will implement this on the Bathory page. Would you agree to use it in article titles as well? Str1977 (smile back) 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking the same, but didn't want to get involved. I think it's a good idea that you should implement. --Thus Spake Anittas 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Zawichost
I think the article is a little short (I prefer at least four different sections to meet the broad requirement, but that's just me), but it is well-written and seems to cover the battle well. I'd say continue to look for any other sources and if you can't find any, take it to GAC to see how it goes. Keep up the good work on getting these various battles up to GA status! --Nehrams2020 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

email
Salut. S-ar putea sa ti se para bizar, dar prefer sa nu indic nici o adresa de mail, te rog sa nu o iei in nume personal, incerc pur si simplu sa imi limitez timpul dedicat wikipedia si sa imi delimitez contributiile la wikipedia de viata personala si/sau profesionala. Nu ma deranjaza sa comunic, in paginile de discutie atat cat imi permite timpul. Inca o data te rog nu o lua in nume personal sau sa o interpretezi ca un gest neprietenos. Plinul cel tanar 11:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Friendly fire
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. BTW, since when you like brunettes?Anonimu 13:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I ever dislike them? I like them all. What exactly are you referring to? My comment on Illyria? --Thus Spake Anittas 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i thought you are more like blond oriented. your last article. Anonimu 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you refer to Halle Berry. I think she looks good, but she's not my type and it has little to do with her hair colour. Anyway, that little stub of few lines which I wrote during work was created due to a newsreading on Yahoo, where I read that she was waiting a baby with G. Aubry and I thought it was a big strange for a supermodel to not have his article on Wiki. They, of all people, deserve one. Don't worry, though: you don't have to create any kind of map for that article. ;) --Thus Spake Anittas 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

On self-portraits
Good one :D. Now that you've seen it is possible to write about yourself, you may consider starting work on Dănilă Prepeleac :).

This is perhaps a good moment to note that you've been after me for all the wrong reasons: when I encounter a subject like that, I try to record it dispassionately and accurately, so I'm probably not a proper term in your Moldo-Wallachian contrast. Even though I do not share or approve of your theories, I gave this project a full article on Gheorghe Asachi, Ion Heliade Rădulescu, and their views about the union, I edited Chronicle of Huru, and I filled in info about the Cuza election not being the brotherly fairytale we're all supposed to believe. That said, I'll never mind you pointing out my flaws or cracking jokes on the mitici, as long as you don't misrepresent me or debase project pages. I'm also glad you liked the article, because it may imply that you're willing to leave all those pointless diatribes behind you (contrary to the perception, I don't really enjoy quarreling and bickering). Cheers, Dahn 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point - I've rephrased it to something which is hopefully clearer. Well, i have to say I did not see the issue (I only looked into one or two pages on that forum, because I didn't find that interesting all in all). But nw that you brought it up: it may perhaps be the result of a confusion between Asachi (or some other guy) and Creangă. If you read further in the text and look through the source, you'll find some more details into the incident. I'm inclined to believe that Creangă was not involved, because the incident was, afaict, provoked by a little group known as "Fracţiunea liberă şi independentă". I don't know that much about them, except that they were an ultra-liberal group with a strong antisemitic agenda, and that they were the target of much ridicule from Junimea. Now, given that IC came to associate with the latter, the probability of him joining in the 1866 move seems rather remote. Eventually, I want to cover this with better info, but I don't have access to the main sources right now. I'll see about it as soon as I can. In the meantime, you could find more details about it in George Panu's book of memoirs.


 * This brings up some interesting issues. For one, as far as I can tell, the Moldavian elites were actually represented by Junimea first and foremost. Granted, it is exceptionally hard to trace a common political viewpoint for the society as a whole, but they all seem to have accepted, at least in part, those set by Maiorescu - who was an Transylvanian-Oltenian with a rather cosmopolitan outlook, who took the union for granted, and who was speaking of Romania as a given. I should also point out that people paying allegiance to Fracţiunea were mostly riff-raff: the lumpenproletarian liberal electorate who was kept alive by the state, who were unwilling to compete on the open market and resented Jews who could, and who probably had nothing to say against the union as long as Cuza ruled with genuine incompetence and an iron fist. This reaction was mirrored in Wallachia, though not in an anti-unionist sense, when the liberals realized that Carol was not about to form a cartel with them. There, the anti-unionist trend was represented by conservatives and by Heliade (there apparently was a similar riot in Craiova). Everything settled down in 1875, when the PNL integrated all the Moldavian radicals and placed this country under a much-ridiculed regime of "prin noi înşine". Once this happened, no Moldavian radicals felt a need to react against the union, and I have to point out that they were still very much present in the leadership of the country (an effect of this was that Jewish emancipation was effectively blocked). In fact, when the PNL changed its ways under Ionel, it was able to absorb the entire Moldavian-born socialist trend (you'll find that, Ibrăileanu, one of the socialists to partake in this communion, made his name by emphasizing differences he though were real between Moldavians and Wallachians). It has also been argued that the riff-raff, antisemitic instincts and all, later moved naturally to the Iron Guard (and was taken there by A. C. Cuza, who, although a Junimist by circumstance, began his career as a socialist). However, you will find that the group of old Junimists and young Moldavian former socialists did pose, more or less directly, the issue of union with Bessarabia as opposed to a union with Transylvania when Ionel picked the Entente - so I guess that, at least for some of them, historical Moldavia remained a priority.


 * Throughout this, Junimea continued to stand for the Moldavian elites, and it is telling that it eventually moved to Bucharest elites and all (not indicative that Bucharest is superior in this sense, but that centralism came as a rather natural thing to its victims). Amusingly, for all his anti-liberal discourse, Eminescu was probably the Junimist most prone to illustrate the process outlined above. He shared Dacist fantasies with Asachi, was educated by Romantics, and was disturbingly racist (not just antisemitic, but also anti-Greek, anti-Bulgarian, anti-Hungarian etc). As we both know, he attacked the Wallachian elite for being "Phanariote". What I didn't know previously is that he went so far with this "Dacian vs. Oriental" discourse that Junimea had to censor him (the Conservatives were getting nervous because, in effect, their backers and leaders were as much "Phanariote" as any other section of the elite); in the end, Eminescu amended his own outbursts, and said that he didn't find all "foreigners" to be bad, but had just meant that some of them were not acting in favor of Romania's interests etc etc.


 * What saying is that the issue is thorny, even if fascinating. The political frontlines were not set up by Bucharest or Iaşi, and were always subject to back room compromises (all of which involved any conceivable group). The issues at hand were very different from what one would expect, and some of the conditions imposed by both sides would be unacceptable in any civilized society. I could add to this that Moldavia's post-union decline was aided by centralism, but was probably in the cards: Moldavia was lagging behind: it had always been underdeveloped and, since the 16th century, far from major major commercial routes (the proximity of which gave us Wallachians, if you will, much more intimate contacts with the Ottomans and the emergence of Mitică); it was more isolated, less socially mobile, less cosmopolitan, and, in the most neutral of senses, more decadent. Iaşi always had less to offer than Bucharest - mostly because Bucharest did its best to offer everything to anyone since the late 1700s. I do believe that Iaşi kept on giving extremely valuable and interesting stuff - from Poporanism to Mungiu -, but the transition to the present-day system was, for lack of a better word, natural. Cities who got more of the wrong end of the stick were Timişoara or Oradea, especially since, aside from the fact that 1918 downgraded them in more ways than one, Mitică did his best to force it upon them: if Bucharest was arguably naturally superior to Iaşi from a practical point of view, it imposed an artificial superiority on Transylvania.


 * Sorry if it seems like I ranted, and I don't ask you to agree with my conclusions. I just hope you don't dismiss them outright. Cheers, Dahn 00:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I leave you hanging on the other issues - I'll reply in due time. On the issue of Dorohoi - yes, that is probably for the best. On the issue of "inconsistent" - see the phrase right before that one (also note that the source attributes this, verbatim, to "atitudinile sale de oscilare şi izolare"). Dahn 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism.
Your edits to Anonimu's userpage are unnecessary, and not wanted by him. You've been warned before about vandalizing other people's user pages. I had considered blocking you, but I'd rather give you one final warning. If you vandalize again you will be blocked; and given your extensive block history I have no problem making it indefinite. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  17:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fair warning. Did he contact you? I wonder what he thinks of this. I don't think the vandalism, if one must call it that, was so serious. What do you think? --Thus Spake Anittas 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing other people's userpage is a very uncivil habit. However I think he shouldn't get blocked for his vandalism on my user page. Giving his difficult family situation, I think we should forgive him this time.Anonimu 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Anonimu! I have left you a thank-you note on Illyria. ;) --Thus Spake Anittas 18:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you know that off-wiki personal attacks can be presented as proofs in wikipedia processes?18:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs)
 * I actually did not. Dahn must have forgotten to post that link. Are you going to start a process against me, Anonimu? --Thus Spake Anittas 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not contacted. Anonimu's user page is on my watchlist. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  18:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates
thanks for your message; can you provide a source? I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates

but also found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Dates


 * so I'm not sure this is a consensus on what to do (altho the 1st link does say that most editors don't link single dates)--FeanorStar7 11:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hello :] --Diurpaneu 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How's it going? --Diurpaneu 15:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Banat
I don't understand? There were near-perfect compromises there. Romanians in southern Banat slowly assimilated peacefully, as well as many Serbs in central Banat; a phenomenon occurring in friendly and related cultures. What was unfair? --PaxEquilibrium 21:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, firstly Romanians formed 37.4% of Banat's population. Serbs formed some 18%-20%. Yes, Romanians formed relative in what is geographically Banat - but as you see not quite a big difference IMHO. Whether Romanians or Serbs were in majority three or more centuries before 1918/19 is not quite important, as it's quite a nationalistic claim - just like Serbs e.g. apply for Albanians in the south. Why would it matter, tell me? In the end, remember that Banat is/was a geographical entity. Counting populations like such we could get bizarre points - the Greeks form majority in Macedonia, does it mean they should have/had whole of Vardar and Thrace Macedonia too? Russians form majority in Europe - does that mean all of Europe should be a part of Russia? Dobruja has a Romanian majority - does that mean Romania should claim the Bulgarian part?
 * As for mistreatment of Romanians I have never heard of such thing - please inform me if you have. What I've heard is that in the southern villages of Serbian Banat several whole villages assimilated into Serbs. However, the same phenomenon occurred in Romanian Banat - with Serbs assimilating into Romanians. This is actually a component part of cultural relatedness and lack of any conflict between the two peoples. Exactly the same thing happened on both sides of the border.
 * Lol, "sharing brotherhood" has nothing to do with politics - and everyone is allowed to declare his/her opinion (neutralism on friendship?). Remember that such a thing is a result of history - the only conflicts Serbs and Romanians ever had was when Serb princely Ottoman vassals invaded the realm of Wallachia in 1395 at Rovine - and when the Kingdom of Romania let (just let) the Axis forces invade the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from its territory. This is uncommon and unseen anywhere else in the world, for peoples that have contacts for a 1,000 years or so. Don't you agree? :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I know history good (at least I think) - could you elaborate the early 14th century event?
 * Greeks are still in majority in Macedonia
 * FYROM shouldn't exist as a state? Then what, and why?
 * Banat isn't quite a historical region - all history it's got is the following: it was an administrative entity of the Habsburg Monarchy for 60 years, in 1718-1778. That's it. I'm not inclined on recording the 1918 self-proclaimed republic.
 * Romania was promised the whole Banat in 1915 - but Serbia (which is well-known) refused to sign the Treaty of London which would ratify that.
 * A small population of Romanians was left in the Serbian part and a small number of Southern Slavs in the Romanian part. That was a normal thing, and a compromise result. Don't you agree?
 * I completely understand what you mean, but believe you me I'm a little tired of those kind of stories because the same are propagated by Serbs about Albanians. --PaxEquilibrium 22:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm asking because I don't think Serbia bordered Wallachia at all. :) You're probably referring to the Vlach soldiers recorded in the Bulgarian army back in a conflict with Bulgaria.
 * Well that's far too POVly said. Today, Macedonia is a multi-ethnic community - but the greatest people are Macedonians, which means it's not the case same as with Switzerland. Serbs never suggested those theories - they greatly claimed the Macedonians for themselves, just like the Bulgarians. The theories on the origin of Macedonians are controversial, but are a little clearer today - it's of 7 Slavic tribes that came there in the 6th century or so. But today the greatest point of democracy is that anyone can be whatever he/she wants, so if someone wants to be an "Xonian" (if that's his personal free will that came from his own accounts), then he is completely free to do so. Are you saying that you're against it?
 * What would you say than on the Montenegrins? --PaxEquilibrium 23:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. BTW that relatedness doesn't just rely on "not fighting" - but on many facts, e.g. that countless Serbs fled and found salvation in the Romanian lands during the late Medieval Ages. There they were accepted completely - two Serbian Princesses from the ruling line were Queens of both Wallachia and Moldavia. Serbs together brought with themselves culture and traditions, which was partially accepted by the Romanians. The Serbian ruler even founded the Metropolitanate of Wallachia and became its first Archepiscop. The Ecumenical Patriarch that was from the Serbian ruling dynasty, like many others, greatly contributed by building Orthodox Churches for Romanians; the printer Makarios created the first Romanian Printing Press. The Romanians then recorded Romanian history, and saved Serbian history from being lost in the wake of Turkish invasions. This is quite similar to the thing that happened between Bulgarians and Serbs before, in the end of the 14th century, when the Turks conquered Bulgaria - although much more intensive. --PaxEquilibrium 00:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When I asked about the Montenegrins, I was talking about the national-historical revisionism you implied to. And yes, there Slavic rebellions in Macedonia against the Byzantine Empire, with traces of state secularism.
 * Then List of Patriarchs of All Romania should be updated. According to my sources, Maxim organized the Metropolitanate of Wallachia the first. --PaxEquilibrium 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But let's return to the Banat issue - Serbs and other South Slavs were left in Romania and Romanians and other Vlachs in the Yugoslavian realm. Also, historically we could find ourselves looped - true, from the 16th (rather than 17th) century Serbs kept colonizing Banat greatly, possibly becoming the most numerous people. But it was then a part of Hungary - not Romania. And first migrations of Serbs to Banat are from the 15th century, too. --PaxEquilibrium 00:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we could bring all kinds of hypothesizing - the final decision of Montenegrin independnece was brought by Montenegro's ethnic minorities, and by great part (unjustly) the diaspora. This is the reason why the pro-Serbian forces there continually refuse to accept the results of the referendum.
 * I said and I'll repeat it - Slavic resistance against Roman rule in Macedonia was well-known, including the near-secularization of states in two, and construction of an Empire in one occasion.
 * When the Serbs colonized Banat, most of the population were Magyars. I would like to remind you that also Banat had not historically been part of the Romanian state - if you count the predecessors, for fourteen centuries - and another interesting part is that Dacia included precisely the modern-day Romanian borders, without the Serbian part of the Banate.
 * You colonized a part of the region and then claimed it as your own. If it hadn't been for you, the natural process would have been for the region to join Romania, as it was meant to; but no hard feelings. First of all, refrain from including me like that, that's insulting. I do not think that it's possible to even begin to hypothesize what would be if it would be for a period of half a millennium.
 * I will ask you again - who wasn't treated nicely, when and why? If you draw that just from an assumption, you might also say the other way - all those Serbs never migrated, they were assimilated - and completely naturally and peacefully. There are tons of former Serb colonies not only in the Romanian part of the Banate - but even Transylvania. Far more than that to which you referred. What happened to them? Were they oppressed? Were they expelled? Where they killed? No, no and no. --PaxEquilibrium 10:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to end up - do you think the Balkans should be a part of Turkey, since Turks form majority of its population? --PaxEquilibrium 21:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked you seriously - because you seem to think that way. --PaxEquilibrium 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)--PaxEquilibrium 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Same question for Dobruja and Romanians. --PaxEquilibrium 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Chat with Bir

 * N-am dat-o pe domnişoară pe dumneavoastră. Ea nu are poştă electronică disponibilă pentru noi şi comunicaţiile noastre se fac toate aici. Eu nu sunt nici muntean, nici, ferească Domnul, oltean. Ea şi-a zis partea aşa cum se cuvine, şi poate acum va tăcea. Nu intenţionez să-mi dăunez relaţiile cu ea, decât poate dacă ia amploare criza. Dar hai să nu mai turnăm benzină pe flăcări. Biruitorul 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anittas, according to Wikipedia's rules, I'm going to have to ask you to translate to English your comments on B's talk page. Biruitorul will have to translate this, too. --PaxEquilibrium 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no such rules. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Citing: Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, it is your responsibility to either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Embassy.
 * Please translate. This way it would seem as if you wrote something inappropriate, utilizing the fact that most Wikipedians don't understand the language you used. --PaxEquilibrium 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is preferable, but it was obviously not preferable by me, at the given time. I am under no obligation to translate anything that I have said, or to find someone who will. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me requote: If you are requested to do so and cannot it is your responsibility to either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Embassy. --PaxEquilibrium 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to get someone else to explain to you that the rules are not conditional. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is actually a guideline, which is only semi-formal. But please, tell me why do you refuse to translate? Are you aware you're putting a very large amount of suspicion to yourself? Why not clear everything up now, with English? --PaxEquilibrium 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will translate the line that pertains to you: "La discutia pe pagina lui PaxEquilibrium, noi am purtat o discutie putin mai incinsa, dar totusi sanatoasa." — "At the discussion on PaxEquilibrium's page, we had a bit of an intense, yet a healthy discussion." The rest is not about you. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Biruitorul, not quite nice at all. --PaxEquilibrium 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with people living west of the olt? Ce caterinca e sa gandesti intr-o limba si sa vorbesti in alta...Anonimu 19:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply in English to avoid further hackles. Yes, I believe an Orthodox, Romanov Russia would be a great spiritual guide for the Balkans, including Romania. I believe a pan-Orthodox spirit exists among all four peoples. While I do see Bulgaria as the "weak link" among those, she too has potential to take her place among the nations of the world as a great Orthodox power. I am aware of the Aromanian issue, and that is unfortunate, but let that not strain too hard on the intense love Romanians have long had for Greece. Serbs fighting in Bosnia and Kosovo merely wished to retain their lands, although they often went about that goal using excessive violence (but in Kosovo NATO was largely to blame). And yes, regrettable actions may have occurred in the Banat in 1920 (nobody's perfect, and I do keep an eye out for our Romanian brethren there), but I'm willing to overlook that in the interests of the renewed pan-Balkan, neo-Byzantine, militantly Orthodox, ardently monarchist ethos that I vigorously promote. Biruitorul 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no more Romanov heirs anymore, so your dream will go to waste. I hope you're young enough to live the time when people become less and less religious. As for Serbs wanting to recapture their territory: that is irrelevant to some of the things they have done. Besides, since when was Croatia their territory? One thing is to be pious and quite another to use religion as political play. I don't worry, though, because your vision i quite unrealistic and your views have no support in the Romanian society. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No one should try to seize anyone's land. No new entities should be created and no border changes. That's the basis of progress & stability. --PaxEquilibrium 14:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you?
Anonimu 19:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Warning: Please read WP:CIVIL. If you do not keep calm, you might get blocked. --PaxEquilibrium 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't warn people for what they say to me. If I decide that I should take his comments as an insult, and if Idecide that I want action to be taken against him, I will do it myself. I (sometimes) count Anonimu as a collegue and I don't want him blocked for the way he communicates to me. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares?Anonimu 20:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm Anittas. Don't you remember me? Why do you ask? --Thus Spake Anittas 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You hit your head, made your pass public or smth like that?Anonimu 19:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you refering to the recent events? I don't see why they are deemed to be so outrageous. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anittas defending Wallachia? sorry, not the one I know...Anonimu 20:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing! You probably got exciting when seeing the arguments, rushed into reading them, and misread one of my messages. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When the Moldavia article is in such a bad state and you go to correct "mistakes" in the article about wallachia, clearly there's smth wrong. Plus the Banat&Macedonia thing. And what happened to your english?Anonimu 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not correct anything in the Wallachian article; I merely pointed out Dahn's errors. I have done the same for the Moldavian article, in the past; and may do it again, in the future. I agree with your assessment of the Moldavian article, but I don't want to say more on the subject. You should take it with the main editor of the article. The reason I brought up the errors in the article on Wallachia is because it was assessed as a Good article: something I disagree with. You can remain calm. It's still me. :) I'm currently working on a Moldavian battle article, which will hopefully become a GA article right from the start. I think I'm going to finish it this upcoming week, unless they ban me or something. You can check it out later... --Thus Spake Anittas 20:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * GA is shit... you can get a GA for a stupid article just by making some friends on the wiki irc channel. I still have some doubts about the validity of this account.Anonimu 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * GA is no big deal, but it's better than nothing. I don't want to go to Illyria to confirm my identity. Are you finished with the other two maps? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anittas could have given away his illyria account too, especially now that it's closing. No incentives, no maps.Anonimu 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I sent you a message and asked you for instructions. You did not reply, so I purchased a subscriber account, as I said I would. It's not my fault that you're indecisive. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * . Nop. It's wrong in several places. I'm not that stupid.Anonimu 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they got it all wrong. I thought that perhaps you wanted to play a trick on me or something. :p --Thus Spake Anittas 21:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if you're not the same person, i still have some little respect for the username you use.Anonimu 21:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I'm not Anittas? You said something about my English? Yesterday, when arguing with Dahn over Mircea, I spent hours in searching for the relevant sources and write them down. That takes energy and I may have lost my focus for a while. Besides, when did you ever respect this nickname? It is I who should question the validity of your identity, and not the other way around. :p --Thus Spake Anittas 21:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Illyria is not closing down. It just moved to another provider. I don`t know why though.... ezboard was OK.--Diurpaneu 08:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)