Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 9

big 1848 project
Hi Romanians! I just wanted to let you guys know that I just submitted a proposal for WikiProject Revolutions of 1848 here. Some of the Hungarians and I have been planning to get the article on our particular 1848 adventure up to FA like we did with the 1956 stuff, but we realized that the 1848 events were so international and so monumental to the history of Europe in general that we really need a pan-European effort to be able to describe all the events of that year. K. Lásztocska 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Valter Roman, edit conflict with User:Dahn
I'm coming directly here, because I feel User:Dahn does behave like a vandal. In the sense of relations with other editors, he is to me the equivalent of User:Bonaparte. I therefore need some outside views on an article you wouldn't see otherwise.

I'm trying to alter the lead a bit. After several exchanges with Dahn (as usual, some full reverts to his perfect version, followed by something I didn't ask for), I have the following proposal:
 * Valter or Walter Roman (born Ernst or Ernő Neuländer; October 9, 1913-November 11, 1983) was a Romanian communist activist and soldier. One of the high-ranking members of the Romanian Communist Party (PCR) after 1944, Roman was also active inside several other communist parties during his lifetime (the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, the French Communist Party, and the Communist Party of Spain), and started his military career in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War.

Dahn's version (after adding the "Austrian-Hungarian" part, which is fully irrelevant, and which I didn't ask for):
 * Valter or Walter Roman (born Ernst or Ernő Neuländer; October 9, 1913-November 11, 1983) was an Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian communist politician, activist, soldier and engineer, one of the high-ranking members of the Romanian Communist Party (PCR) and active inside several other communist parties during his lifetime (the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, the French Communist Party, and the Communist Party of Spain).[1] A volunteer in the Spanish Civil War and Comintern activist, Roman rose to prominence in Communist Romania.

FYI, here is the initial version of Dahn:
 * Valter or Walter Roman (born Ernst or Ernő Neuländer; October 9, 1913-November 11, 1983) was a Romanian communist politician, activist, soldier and engineer, one of the high-ranking members of the Romanian Communist Party (PCR) and active inside several other communist parties during his lifetime (the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, the French Communist Party, and the Communist Party of Spain).

Why a new lead: The sense of my edits is that we should not leave readers thinking that Roman was a high-level activist prior to leaving Romania. I've seen no source on that. Also, he was not a soldier prior to leaving Romania. Dpotop 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The "engineer" part is irrelevant in the lead. He was not known for that, just like Ceausescu is not known as a shoemaker.
 * 2) He is indeed a Communist activist of Romanian citizenship, hence the first statement, but:
 * 3) He was better known for activities outside Romania before coming as a high-level activist to Romania in 1944.
 * 4) He started his military career in Spain, not in Romania.
 * 5) The Austria-Hungaria part is completely irrelevant, as the guy (Roman) clearly states.
 * You don't understand: Dahn is not a vandal...he's a member of the Argument Clinic. See here. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed! :):):) Dpotop 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Dahn 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

News: Dahn made an "ok then" edit, giving up the Austrian Hungarian part I never cared about. :):) So please express your oppinion here. "You" is to be understood here as the plural form. Dpotop 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who, me? Or people in general? Dahn 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You, too, because you never cared to explain your reverts. But the others, too. Dpotop 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Romania
This article is currently a link pointing to Communist Romania. I feel this is somehow incorrect, because most technical information related to the occupation is missing or diluted (start, end, legal basis for start/end, Soviet-imposed measures, etc.). Does anyone have sources on this? I don't, unfortunately. Dpotop 11:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * News: It appears that Mikkalai is the one that hid the article under a link, and Dahn has uncovered it. I think this article is pretty much in need of improvement. BTW, is there an article named "Soviet occupation of Bessarabia?" Dpotop 11:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't you comment on its talk page? Dahn 11:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. :)) I sometimes navigate from page to page without necessarily noticing the page name. Dpotop 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Monica Macovei
This article contains good data, but is in great need of cleaning up and restructuring. I cite from the current version:
 * With respect to Macovei's fight against corruption and efforts to reform the judicial system, noted Romanian academic, poet, and former Foreign Minister Andrei Plesu (who also briefly served as an advisor to President Băsescu) described her as a "fragile samurai, a transluscent fighter..."

It's quite poetic. :):):) As to the article structure, it mixes the various biography chapters in a very non-chronological manner. Dpotop 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Would very much appreciate if others would focus on this article. It was previously being used as a forum for cricicism in a very non-NPOV wayMIsterMan 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In the news
In this article from the BBC you will find mention of someone who spent the last few years in Romania, in, ahem, a cool place, writing a book about Vlad III the Impaler. This seems like a potential candidate for an article--anyone feels like starting it? (The person is mentioned in the pages on Mihai Eminescu and Ionel Teodoreanu, as well as in the Bibliography of Mircea Eliade, so some notability is already established...) Turgidson 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Contest Announcement!
The rules are simple. I've picked the names of six important Communists whose biographies we lack. Your job: one editor will sign his name next to each red link below ( ~ ). You have two weeks to complete a reasonably-sized article on this figure. The editor whose article first gets successfully DYKed wins the contest.

Hint: each of these figures has a short biography in the Tismăneanu Report, pp. 645-665. Use that. Then go to Google and Google Books to augment what you've written. For a sample article produced through this process, see Teohari Georgescu.


 * Emil Bodnăraş Daizus 09:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Iosif Chişinevschi
 * Alexandru Drăghici
 * Alexandru Moghioroş
 * Leonte Răutu
 * Valter Roman Dpotop 10:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (I'll do it slowly, not as part of the contest)

If your preferred subject didn't show up, don't worry: there will be future contests. Good luck! Biruitorul 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What's to win? (Hint:After adding "facts" from the Tismaneanu report you should go and search in your library your old communist history book and add from there data about interbellum romanian politicians)Anonimu 11:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any "Rules of engagement" saying that Dahn is not allowed to edit your text until the 2 weeks are over? It may seem funny, but without such rules, the contest cannot work. Dpotop 12:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, you can create your material in a soap-box or even a draft unwikified version in your own computer, so you won't have to worry about disruptive edits. Daizus 12:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpotop and Daizus, I believe my source-based contributions have done nothing but improve wikipedia, especially in the area of Communist Romanian history. If you think otherwise, that's you business entirely and you could do me the favor of not mudslinging and trolling, at least not on this page (even though you are currently doing it for about the 5th time). Having known each other for long, Dpotop, I expect you to have this much decency. Dahn 12:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually take your comment as a personal offense and the n-th proof that you're an editor unable to work in a team, having a discourse based heavily on ad hominems and groundless assumptions, in continuous violation of Wiki policies. I have not addressed your person. Please justify "mudslinging and trolling" or bring apologies (as a side comment I believe your contributions did not always improve Wikipedia - for an obvious example just check the articles stuck in edit wars). Daizus 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry: what? Dahn 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be glad to participate. But I think I have at home some "Dosarele Istoriei" and several other periodicals covering mostly the Communist era of Romania. I'll see what I have and I'll pick later one of them. Daizus 12:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, you get the Lenin Peace Prize if you win. I should also note that the Tismăneanu Report is based on facts, whereas communist books are based on distortions, so the comparison is inapt.
 * Do you guarantee that? Enough with the sophistry. We both know that history is written by winners. Tismaneanu is just a modern Roller (BTW don't you find it hypocrite to condemn the political interferences in writting history (by communists), when the Tismaneanu report is exactly the same thing, since it was commanded by a political institution and financed from the state budget.)Anonimu 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, guaranteed, you get a Lenin Peace Prize. You might as well compare Tismăneanu to Horia Sima. Unlike Roller, he's not rewriting history, but rather trying to tell the truth. Now, I'll grant you, the Tismăneanu Report isn't the Word of God - and neither is the Wiesel Report, which some people treat as such. For instance, I find both to be anti-Orthodox, and the former's lack of discussion about Bessarabia is shocking. And you're right that its state-funded nature raises questions. However, there are two key differences. One, flawed though it may be, today's Romanian government has a popular legitimacy totally lacking in the Communist one. Two, and this is crucial, people (the press, civil society, the Church, other politicians, private individuals) are free to criticise, take apart and even reject the report. You may recall that Ceauşescu himself convened a sort of CNSAS, the one that exonerated Vasile Luca, rehabilitated Gheorghe Cristescu, and generally made Ceauşescu look good. Well, you couldn't state your disagreement with that. You can do so now. That's a powerful difference. Biruitorul 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I receive it from the hands of the General Secretary of the PCUS, it has no meaning. Why? Yes, he's rewriting history (or better said, makes myths become official history). If you were the judge by the manifestation in 1968 (and the mass enthusiams), you could say that Ceausescu and his gvt had a pretty strong popular legitimacy (at least in the late 60s and early 70s). Please, not the "civil society"... the definition on my user pages is too mild for the "civil society" of nowadays... What press? the pro-basescu one (evz, romania libera, 22 and some lesser-known ones, all controlled by the "civil society") or the one controlled by the "moghuls" (the rest).Anonimu 16:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll talk to Zyuganov. Could you point out some of those myths? Yes, he was popular for a few years, but in democracies, which are preferable to "people's democracies", we show approval through elections, and not just demonstrations (many of them staged). OK, I also disdain the "civil society" embodied by ugly sophists like Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, but it's bigger than that - BOR, for instance, is part of civil society. It's not all bad. And it's something that was almost completely absent during Ceauşescu's dictatorship, which no doubt made for harsher harsher rule than had he allowed it (which was inconceivable, as Communism is opposed to liberty and seeks to enslave people). There is a free press, OK? Get used to the idea. It does useful things. I don't care if Voiculescu or CT Popescu or whoever controls it - it's better than just having Scînteia! Biruitorul 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why, he isn't a member of the PCUS... There are too many... The general enthusiams was not staged (lots of young people voluntarily joined the patriotic guards). How many representants of the BOR do you see in the media? (btw, let's not briong communism into discussion, but since we're at it, it didn't oppose liberty or enslave people... on the contrary it fought against the exploitation of man by man). Man i just quoted or beloved President... if he says we have moghuls, then we do... ;) Anonimu 11:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The CPSU was dissolved in 1991 - Zyuganov is the best we can do - or would you prefer Gorbachev? Again, maybe you could point out one of those myths. Some of it was staged, some was not - the point is, you need elections to gauge these things effectively. The BOR did speak out against the Report after it came out, though it could be more visible than it now is. People in Stalinist Russia had liberty? People in Dej's Romania weren't enslaved? The men who dug the Canal weren't being exploited? You live on planet Earth? Băsescu is a fool, and there's nothing wrong with moguls. Trăiască Regele! Biruitorul 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, All or nothing... The report has 600 pages, i won't go now to look for such fragments. But BPD got 70% in the 1946 elections. Man i was talking about commuism, not stalinism or deformed workers' states. He'll die soon ;)Anonimu 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not even one myth? You can do better. News flash: the 1946 election was a FRAUD ! That's right, a FRAUD ! Stalin, Ceauşescu, Kim Il Sung - all self-proclaimed Communists, and Communists in fact as well. He will die, and then there will be a new King. That's the hereditary principle in action. Biruitorul 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Open the Tismaroller report randomly and you'll find a myth. Yeah, it was a fraud because women and soldiers were allowed to vote... There's no proof except an obscure "document". You don't know what communism is, so you'd better shut up. He is the king of his family. Because he has no country. When your father will die, you could style yourself King of the Biruitors.Anonimu 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tismaroller - I like that. But again, I'd like you to cite one myth. Have you even looked at the report? No, it was a fraud for all the reasons cited here. Think about it - why would Communism suddenly become so popular? It was the PNŢ that had the support of the people. I do know what Communism is - Piteşti, Aiud, Gherla, the Canal, the Soviet Gulag, the North Korean Gulag... Never again. Well, no, because I'm not of royal blood. King Michael is. He doesn't have a country, but he could. And his successor will be pretender to the throne; monarchists will recognise him as King or as Crown Prince, and all of Romania will see him as King once he is restored to the throne. Biruitorul 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, thank you for the offer. Dpotop: we can't stop Dahn from editing, and that's a good thing. My advice is to write off-wiki or in a sandbox and then publish - but I'm sure that any edits Dahn makes afterwards will only improve your work. And in the unlikely event that they don't, the wiki-process will always sort out those problems. Let's try to keep personal polemics out of this. Biruitorul 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so sure... you know, some people tend to get possessive with their edits.Anonimu
 * Naturally. Biruitorul 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If no one else has serious scholarship available, I'll try Emil Bodnăraş. I don't have much, but I have something. Daizus 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it! He's an interesting figure - it'll be good to have a piece on him. Biruitorul 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Biruitorule, with your permission, I am rather inclined to think that if “some people tend to get possessive with their edits”, this is not that “natural” as you seem to suggest. Moreover, I think that WP:OWN behaviour is highly detrimental to the project. The fact that you have normal vs. good relations to User: Dahn recommends you as an user with exceptional mediatorial capabilities. You should however admit, that maintaining normal relations with User: Dahn is not everybody’s privilege. As I indicated in a previous warning and in a subsequent post, both removed by Dahn from his talk page, Dahn’s behaviour to several users is often confrontational, insulting and denigratory and this could grow into a problem for the community. Unfortunately, recent developments have rather confirmed my appraisals: Dahn has provoked/fed war edits on four articles (Alexandru Nicolschi,Leonte Tismăneanu,Vladimir Tismăneanu, Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania) in the last week, leading to the protection of those articles ever since. I think that this kind of disruptive behaviour has much to do with Dahn’s WP:OWN behaviour and I also think that this behaviour should be taken seriously, with no attempts of justifying or minimizing it. Once a certain article comes to Dahn’s attention and enjoys some edits from him, it appears that Dahn develops a very strong possession relationship to his work. If, by accident some other user tries to edit that article, s/he will suddenly face a storm of disruptive behaviour from Dahn: dismissive reverts, libelling summary comments, endless filibuster tactics on the talk page, edit wars, slander, unlikely arrogant and humiliating remarks, attempts to manipulate users with administrative tools against his “rivals”, a flow of complaints and accusations of “stalking”, “harassment”, “vandalism” – that is exactly what he does to others, in brief, every “resource” is mobilised in order to evict other users from what Dahn thinks to be HIS article. (Needless to add, that I am ready to provide full evidence for every statement regarding Dahn’s behaviour). I deem this behaviour as highly detrimental. It poisons this tiny Romanian corner of the EnWiki.

Biruitorule, since I really believe in your interpersonal skills, you could help trying in winning Dahn to the idea of common effort. He seems to be so narcissistic and so persuaded of his superiority over other users, that it will be quite hard a work convincing him condescending collaboration and dialogue. However, hope dies last. --Vintila Barbu 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintilă, let me explain my remark. Speaking only for myself, when I publish an article, although I welcome improvements, I don't like it if someone comes in and changes things for the worse. I'm not saying you did that, but it has happened to me. And although I'm aware of WP:OWN, still, articles that I write are my work, so I do get disappointed when people mess about with them. So I think I understand how Dahn feels about this. Having said that, I also sympathise with what you say, as it's no fun being reverted, assuming your contributions are in good faith (which I think they are). If you would like me to talk to Dahn, I can, or in extremis you can start an RfC. However, my own credo is: "Vorba dulce mult aduce". You know Dahn likes to guard his edits - so how about before making controversial, you suggest them on the talk page first? Is this slightly annoying and demeaning? Could be, but it saves aggravation later on. And remember that it is now Great Lent - we should be making sacrifices, and surely a little kindness is something we can give, when Christ gave Himself for us. Just keep talking, and keep a cool head. You'll achieve more that way, I guarantee it. (By the way, this is not a one-sided proposal, as I've seen Dahn making compromises in the past, and he is open to changes when they're constructive.) The point is, we need to defuse this situation, and I'm ready, willing, and able to work with both sides. (Maybe I can arrange for you to have a glass of beer with him - would that help?) Biruitorul 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you’re simply uncontradictable, Biruitorule … :) once again God proofed to be the greatest ironist of all times: he bestowed you with the gift of interpersonal appeasement, while letting some of us completely lacking interpersonal skills…--Vintila Barbu 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose to elect Biruitorul the Wikipedian Minister of Truth and Reconciliation or at least its Spokesperson. :Dc76 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't think I can handle all of Wikipedia! But just these fellows, sure, I'm open to mediate if people want me to. Biruitorul 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Vintilă. I try to be a little like Atticus - as Cornelius Nepos writes in his excellent biography of Atticus: "He conducted himself in such a manner in political affairs, that he always was, and always was thought to be, on the best side; 257 yet he did not mingle in civil tumults, because he thought that those who had plunged into them were not more under their own control than those who were tossed by the waves of the sea." Biruitorul 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I suggest this brew. It's simply the best, trust me!  Turgidson 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as expected. After less than one day editing with Vintila on the chosen Valter Roman topic, Dahn has come along. This is no contest. :) Dpotop 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you have said you'll do it, slowly, out of the contest. Perhaps Dahn wanted to speed it up :) Daizus 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, the question is: did Dahn improve the article? If not, what, in your opinion, did he do to bring down its quality? That's the key question, and at first glance it seems to me that he markedly improved it. Biruitorul 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, YES. But your "contest" is a joke. After writing one page and a half (like any normal editor would do in a day while doing something else), Dahn (and you) came and took it over, and it's now at DYK level. For the contest to work, Dahn could have chosen all the remaining figures and bring them to DYK status before coming to the already chosen articles. Dpotop 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dpotop, you clearly stated you're not doing it as a part of the contest. You haven't used a sandbox, you haven't used "this page is modified by one editor. please do not interfer" tag, you haven't used any method to warn other users not to interfer with your work. So Dahn has done what any editor could do. He has his faults, being a productive editor with sources (for some of the topics he covers) is not one of them. Please ... Daizus 08:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, but Dpotop, you would get part of the credit if it were DYKed (by the way, the clock is ticking for that). It would say "started by Dpotop, expanded by Dahn". And if you do make it (pretty much guaranteed), then you win the contest. Biruitorul 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have little experience in handling images and at this moment I have a thing I want clarified. How do I know an image with apparently no copyright note is actually under copyright or not? Particularily, I want to know if I can use here this image. Daizus 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. I had exactly the same problem yesterday, when uploading this here  :Image:71_G.sized.jpg, for the article on Mihail Lascăr (the predecessor of  Emil Bodnăraş at the Defense Ministry of Romania).  My hunch is that this may create problems, since it's not more than 70 years old (or is it 80? whatever the cutoff point is), only 60, but I hope not (after all, this looks like a public-domain site to me, especially for the older pictures).  On the other hand, the same image appears on ro.wiki, but maybe they have looser requirements there?   At any rate, after working some more on the article, I saw that another pic of Lascăr was already on en.wiki (in the article for FC Steaua, of all places!), so I used that one, to be on the safe side, though it's not quite of the same quality (the file has been shrunk, looks to me).  At any rate, not sure any of this helps, but maybe it does.  And, by the way, would it make sense to have a template for the Defense Ministers, with a clear line of succession?  (It took me a while to figure it out; the mapn.ro site with pics and all helped clear things up.)  Turgidson 13:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lenin Peace Prize for Anonimu, with the way Russia has been going, it may not be too late to get a real one. Be patient, Anonimu, this may just be an interregnum. Meanwhile, we could give whoever wins an award pentru merite deosebite în wikipedizare. Anyone want to design it? - Jmabel | Talk 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point - Anonimu, I will buy you airfare to Moscow, I will hire a band to play you all the good communist songs. By the way (and I say this without bitterness), the way this contest has unfolded is so typically Romanian. I bet that if I'd proposed to the German noticeboard that they write articles on six Nazis, they would have done so within two days. Instead we have digressed wildly from the original scope. But that's just how things go in the Romania we know and love, and I wouldn't ever trade it in for the rather inhuman German model. Biruitorul 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL...I simply must see what the Hungarians would do with such a contest...I ♥ the Romanian noticeboard...K. Lásztocska 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be interesting - in fact a cross-wiki experiment of this sort might yield valuable data. But will you tell them about this? Or maybe they already read this board. Anyway, I look forward to the results. Biruitorul 15:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I can't think of any good topics to pose a contest on...I'd just come up with a bunch of obscure classical musicians or something. For the future, how about a Hungary vs. Romania match? We could pick (or create) two articles on similar topics, one for Hungary and one for Romania, then the same two weeks to work on it as in the current all-Romanian extravaganza. As for prizes: whoever gets DYK'ed first gets bragging rights to Transylvania for a month. :) (on Wiki that is.) K. Lásztocska 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but keep in mind the advice that Farkas Bolyai (a mathematician from Sibiu) gave his son, János Bolyai (a mathematician from Cluj). True, the advice pertained to the parallel postulate, but one may argue the advice applies more generally -- who knows, maybe even today, at Wiki? Speaking of which, how about bringing the article on Cluj University (oops, Babeş-Bolyai University) up to DYK status?  Turgidson 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, i never intended to write an article. Contests without prizes or with symbolic prizes are profoundly unromanianAnonimu 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True enough. Biruitorul 15:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not fair! Me and Vintila have written half an article in half a day, with sources and everything. Dahn coming afterwards spoilt the fun (and finished the article), but still, you can't claim we didn't do stuff. Daizus is working on it, too. It's just you, Biruitorule, that didn't choose a figure to write an article. I saw you helped Dahn a bit, but this doesn't qualify as article writing. BTW, on German wikipedia, Dahn would have started writing one void article after the other, not stalking other editors. Dpotop 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm sure that if you nominate it as "started by Dpotop, expanded by Vintila Barbu and Dahn" that would be fine too. I don't think it's a good idea to be fixated on the details. The fact is that you gentlemen produced a good article in a short space of time, and you deserve to be rewarded with a DYK. Let's try to be positive. Biruitorul 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a contest for the best 1 April article (not restricted to Romanian related topics). I don't have much time to do some good job, but here is one good sourse material Vlad Putină.

I have just been noticed that Valter Roman has been DYK-ed. The article was mainly written (in alphabetical order) by Vintila Barbu, Biruitorul, Dahn, Dc76, Dpotop. Dpotop 11:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me add: it was User:Carabinieri who nominated it. Dahn 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done nothing for this article, just read it when it was ready, and made 2 very small corrections.:Dc76 14:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to Dpotop on his victory! Not that the other articles shouldn't also be done... Biruitorul 04:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When did the Romanian Soviet agents change their names?
Indeed, we know of a number of Soviet agents that they changed (Romanianized) their names prior to their accession to power in 1945/1948. Is there some data available on the exact moment where this name change occurred for individuals such as Gheorghe Pintilie (Pantelei Bodnarenko), Leonte Tismaneanu (Leonid Tisminetki), Alexandru Nicolschi (Boris Grunberg). There are also minor changes, such as Gheorghe Gheorghiu to Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej, but I presume the motivation was different. Dpotop 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am interested if some analysis of these name changes exists. Is this something specific to Communist Romania? This is a bit of information that could probably help editors on several articles. Dpotop 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this was specific to Romania; rather, standard practice for the NKVD at the time. For example, take a look at Jacob Golos. One article that really piqued my curiosity is the one on Elizabeth Zubilin (born in Bessarabia, I think). The data I could find are kind of murky but, according to Pavel Sudoplatov (an NKVD director in the 1930s-1940s),  Zubilin (née Zarubina) was a niece of Ana Pauker; moreover, one of their common relatives (Elizabeth's elder brother) was involved in terrorist operations in Romania just after WWI; he escaped twice from a military court while being tried, but finally, in 1922, he was killed in a firefight; see here for a Romanian version.  Anyone around here knows of reliable sources that could help tie up and make more sense of some of these stories?  Turgidson 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to disregard the falsehood of the claim that Leonte Tismăneanu was a Soviet agent, and will addres the point as it was presented. From what I have read, the party asked them to change their names sometime after WWII, and it appears that this was a conscious move in a series of conscious moves: it began with the will to Romanianize the party in the 1930s (when Gheorghiu Dej's group was first encouraged by Stalin to asume political responsability, and when an influx of ethnic Romanains was encouraged), and was highlighted by Stalin's bigotry in the late 1940s (during the "anti-cosmopolitan" campaign). As you may see in the article on him, the Tismăneanu name was adopted in 1949, at the request of the PCR. A similar procedure occurred with Vasile Luca, Ion Vincze/Vinţe, Iosif Chişinevschi etc. Dahn 12:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn whitewashing Vladimir Tismaneanu
Hello all,

The Ziua newspaper published today a part of Tismaneanu's Securitate file. In this official document of the Romanian state, it clearly appears that Tismaneanu worked as a lecturer propagandist of the Romanian Communist Party, and that he was allowed to travel several times abroad before his "defection" of 1981. User:Dahn keeps pushing this info in the Controversy section, saying this is POV, and that "the source was only published today" (see the article history). I find this behavior outrageous. Better sources than the guy's Securitate file are difficult to find, and I would not expect it to be wrong on factual aspects such as the employment and foreign visit records.

Someone, please intervene. Dpotop 10:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with your argument about Securitate files. Could you, please suggest a version of the article that seems more logical to you. Also, could Dahn, please, do the same thing - suggest a version that seems more logical to him. In that way we could narrow down the differences. As all I know about Tismaneanu is only from press (I never even tried to find more documented info), it is hard for me to give an oppinion about the article in totality. But if you narrow to specific issues, than those can be easily checked with the sourses you and Dahn provide. :Dc76 12:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My proposal is listed on Talk:Vladimir Tismăneanu.Dpotop 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My version does not exclude the information. It places it in its proper context, indicates who said what, and does not present various conclusions as definitive (it certainly not argues for them as "biographical data"). Let us also note that the person in question has not had a chance to respond to any of the accusations. This is my version. Dahn 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael of Romania
Another one of King Michael's fans is vandalizing his article. JamesP2003 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
User:Ling.Nut has apparently designed a barnstar for work on Romanian-related topics. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade
Given that all disputes involving Dahn are unusually harsh, I'd like to invite you in a discussion concerning the Mircea Eliade article. My problem is that Dahn is currently promoting an article that includes a quite large list of works criticising various aspects of Eliade's work. At the same time, Dahn does not want to include the actual list of works by Eliade, relegating it in another article. This poses a problem of fairness and POV. My position is that either both lists of works (Eliade's and the critics') are included, or both are made into separate articles (they are both large enough to justify separate articles). Dpotop 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, for Christ. I have simply done what was proposed by Jmabel a long time ago on that article's talk page. Dpotop has misunderstood the meaning of a word, and has merely duplicated the list inside the article. Again. If the user wants to object to the move, let him at least clarify his point on the talk page, because the assumptions are bewildering. I hope someone will have the good sense to revert what is, in essence, a fork! Dahn 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jmabel, or you, or me suggesting it does not mean it's perfect. Look at articles such as William Shakespeare, James Fraser, Emil Cioran, Richard Pipes (all social scientists and writers), and tell me where do you find all the critical apparatus, and no bibliography whatsoever. Dpotop 08:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * D, I cannot answer you on 14 separate and contradictory assumptions, so stick to just one. My full answer is on Talk:Mircea Eliade. Dahn 09:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I see it, your reply is "Cberlet and Jmabel had some concerns, this is why the article looks like this". And I don't see where you got your 14 assumptions from? I have just one: the article Mircea Eliade is unbalanced because, unlike other articles on wikipedia, it includes all the critical apparatus, but no bibliography whatsoever. Dpotop 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because. Dahn 12:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Va doresc si eu numai fericire in noul an, integrare usoara celor din tara si La Multi Ani!!! Dpotop 14:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

EN: I wish an easy european integration to those living in Romania, and Many happy new years! to all. Dpotop 14:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
Hey neighbours, congratulations on joining the EU with us! :) We've walked a long way together and I hope we continue to build bridges between our countries – in both the direct and metaphorical sense of the word. Oh, and la mulţi ani! Todor→Bozhinov 12:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Romanians
Someone took it upon himself to remove all entries that did not have articles from List of Romanians, based on a misinterpretation (and a misquote) of a guideline. I have pointed out the misinterpretation on the talk page of that article and have restored the entries. However, it is quite possible that some of these entries do not have even article potential: certainly many of the names were unfamiliar to me, but I don't particularly follow sports, and I am far from an expert on things like lists of prominent scientists.

Anyway, it would be good if people would look at areas with which they are familiar and either remove names of people they are sure are not article-worthy or indicate on the talk page those about whom they have doubts. I'm not by any means saying that everyone currengly listed there deserves an article, but I am saying that the fact that they do not yet have one is not a legitimate basis for removal. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To be blunt, the only thing good about having such lists in the first place is that trolls and noobs who have nothing relevant to contribute direct their energies at them, instead of "improving" other articles out of boredom. Joke aside, I honestly don't know why we still have lists like that. I mean, who can possibly picture that, just in case one of us would wake up with supernatural powers that would allow him or her to render extend the list and make it at least remotely relevant, a list that big would be workable? My format proposal (although I'd rather have the list removed altogether): replace the list itself with links to detailed lists of Romanians by profession, ethnic origin and whatnot (those in Category:Lists of Romanians plus, if you have to, Rulers of Wallachia and Rulers of Moldavia); whatever you are left with from the original text that is not already on a list, turn into new lists and also link them there. This should also make problems of inflation more manageable, and corrections easier to make. As it is, that list is destined to remain a playground. Dahn 10:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Regulamentul Organic
Hi. I've nominated Regulamentul Organic for featured article status. Just to let you know. Congratulations to all those involved! Ronline ✉ 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My concern is the amount of red links - will that be a problem? Dahn 12:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin
Once again, an article has been created on Sorin Cerin; once again, we need to discuss whether to keep or deleted: Articles for deletion/Sorin Cerin (Dec 2006). - Jmabel | Talk 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * AFD closed. Now seeded against recreation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Google in Moldovan
Bonaparte sent me this link:  http://www.google.com/intl/mo/ Funny they use Latin script and î, but write "sunt". Dpotop 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is perhaps the time to point out that, in case you were planning it, spamming meta will not lead to the closure of the Moldovan google. In case you were not, why were you posting this here? Dahn 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I believe it is important, given that many of the contributors here have posted on moldovan subjects. Despite what you may think, Ronline and Bogdan have posted recently, along with other editors like me, TSO1D, etc. When are you going to accept that different people may find justified oppinions you don't profess? Dpotop 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that in Romanian, the language is named "Română (Moldova)", while in Moldovan, the same language is named "Moldovenească". That's a pretty cool solution. ;-) bogdan 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's pretty funny. I wonder who is the actual author of the translation. Note that it's very different in wording from the Romanian version, from which I presume the author is different. Dpotop 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, yes, I have seen this before. I don't know what genius at Google came up with this idea but it's pretty funny to see how they're trying to make this non-sense work. I wonder if they are paying native "Moldovan" translators. TSO1D 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Tismaneanu report
Thanks to Bogdan, we have now a link to what Cristoiu labelled as Raportul rafuielii politice (The report of political revenge). You can find the piece of propaganda here. Just a note to innocent bystanders: While reading it, try to learn who Tismaneanu and Basescu are. Dpotop 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When you're done canvassing, perhaps you'll have a look into Neutral point of view and Neutral point of view. Dahn 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend you and others who are contributing on communism in Romania not to source articles with this pseudo-scientific report (since it has been condemned, completelly or partially, by the Opposition as well as some apolitical public figures.) Anonimu 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I certainly care. Dahn 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I you won't, probably i'll begin sourcing articles with some of Ceausescu's books. Anonimu 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it is a scholarly work with large appeal and backing, about which things are alleged, I don't plan to use it as a reference, except perhaps to double-check references to number of people killed etc. (if anyone would extend a doubt on raw data, that person would be out of order) and to indicate an official point of view in matters that need debate. No, siree, there are plenty of scholarly works that reach the same conclusion. Your Ceauşescu "parallel" is absurd on several levels, and I will not waste my time to comment on it. Dahn 20:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy is to include all POVs. I don't see why I could not use Ceausescu as a source (ok i may get dirty, since i suppose his books are covered in a thick layer of dust) Anonimu 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's dust. Dahn 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Anonimu, on the subject of Ceauşescu's books, I have a little assignment for you, if you feel like it. Nothing he wrote is listed here, when obviously it should be. So go ahead and write some in - it would add lots of value to that list. Biruitorul 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are these enough? Anonimu 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice. Thanks a lot! Biruitorul 04:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may not agree with Anonimu for his self-declared communism. But I'm not a communist and I believe this report to be not entirely false, but heavily biased. Therefore, I would say articles should not base their presentation on it.
 * As to the report being "scholarly work", I just cite here a fragment:
 * Spre a relua o formulă a lui George Orwell, în universul totalitar, tot ce nu este interzis, este obligatoriu. Inclusiv datoria oamenilor de a fi fericiţi în pofida condiţiilor degradante la care îi condamna sistemul. La sfârşitul regimului comunist din România, deci în momentul Congresului al XIV-lea din noiembrie 1989, acel conclav crepuscular pe care îl putem numi congresul ruşinii şi al disperării, PCR număra aproape 4 milioane de membri
 * What is "scholar" in this fragment? This is prose, not history. And I hope we will discuss more detailed points of this report in the future.
 * And don't get me wrong. I am for a condemnation of Communism. But on its real problems, not along the lines "Communism is all bad, period". Most problems of communism are discussed or mentioned in the report. I'll just note several points:
 * Not making a clear distinction between the occupied Romania of before 1958 and the following period is idiotic. Even some of you noted the clear distinction between the cominternist communists that came in 1945, and the Ceausescu regime. In a sense, this report is the revenge of the KGB over the guys that somehow managed to get rid of the Soviet rule. Something only Romania managed to do. You may argue that this lead to bad things (and I am interested in contributing on these subjects), but those guys risked their life (or thought so) at certain times. It may not have been "patriotic", but it look like it.
 * Blaming some of the "inner cercle dissenters" and not describing the whole picture is not decent. The situation in Romania was worse than the report tends to present it. Dissidents like Blandiana, etc, were also "inner circle dissenters" by all standards. Dpotop 21:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would take an hour to formulate an answer as to why you are wrong. I will simply say this: virtually all scholars have presented similar conclusions. Your discourse making the communist regime dependent on Soviet occupation (during - bad/after - good) is unhistorical. Dahn 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you really not understanding what I'm saying? I'll assume good faith and tell you that what I'm saying is simply that the Romanian Communist regime has several periods with different problems. And the fact that other scholars say Communism is bad does not make Tismaneanu's analysis unbiased. I said it already: There is truth in his report, but blame is channeled according to personal interest, not facts. Facts are picked up to support these personal interests. Dpotop 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understood your point perfectly. I will repeat mine: most scholars will agree that "the different periods" of Romanian communism, in the sense which you produce, is mythology. Dahn 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm copying from below: You keep mixing (like the report) the two periods of Romanian Communism. During the first, the Tismaneanu were a privileged family due to their Soviet background. During the second, they were discriminated due to their Soviet background and Jewish descent. Even for Tismaneanu (and you) this difference should be clear. Dpotop 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep pushing that "paradigm"... Who was in power in 1950? Who was in power in 1960? (Clue: it was the same person, but don't tell anyone.) Dahn 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I keep, see my reply below for it. As for 1950-60, I'll just say: In 1950, Stalin was in power in Romania, and Dej was his straw man. In 1960, the bad guy was indeed Dej, and Khruschov could do nothing about it. Dpotop 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Was Dej his straw man when he killed Foriş and imprisoned Luca? That Stalin must've really been thorough about what he wanted done in Romania... Was it not also Dej who plunged us into the national communism that Ceauşescu represented until his death? What "rules", "rulers", and "periods" are we then talking about? Dahn 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, this is how one is to refute the Cristoisms above:
 * "Tismăneanu makes the Gheorghiu-Dej period look much better than the Ceauşescu one, because his father was ousted by the latter" - that so? First of all, Cristoiu does not base his assessment of the report on anything, but we should believe him. Secondly: did Ceauşescu throw his father out of the party in 1960? Did Gheorghiu-Dej readmit him in 1964?
 * "Băsescu takes on Ghizela Vass, whom I have never heard of, because he has a bone to pick with Bogdan Olteanu". For one, the supposed central element of the matter is an imbecility - who the hell is going to suppose that: 1) the president is so consumed by rivalry with Olteanu that he fraudulently handles the report, in the unlikely event that anybody else is going to make the connection (let us note, again, that, also according to Cristoiu, Băsescu is picking on who is someone terribly obscure, so the "vengeance" would be normally consumed between the three people that are aware of the subject!); 2) Olteanu is going to and should be harmed by conclusions regarding his long-dead relatives; 3) Tismăneanu, under the assumption that the report is meant to harm relatives of communists, contributes the report... while he himself is... the son of a communist. This is an aside, my friends, because the actual matter here is whether Vass was prominent and noted for her activities. Not only does Cioroianu, another major scholar of the period and a PNL member, also indicate that she was and why she was, but the PNL itself, ergo Olteanu, has countersigned the report!


 * Well, I do believe that Basescu is doing such a thing. The guy destroys all people with potential around him. Dpotop 21:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My full argument is: that it is unlikely that would even mark Olteanu, let alone "destroy" him; that it is unlikely for Băsescu not to have known this; that it is unlikely, using your very own "arguments" and the principles of logic, for Tismăneanu to have taken part in this. As for the rest, if you have to believe it, keep on believing; but I'm sure we ought to rely on more than "what Dpotop believes" in criticizing the conclusions of this report. Dahn 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Tismăneanu has a beef with Valter Roman, therfore Valter Roman is badmouthed" - this is sheer hypocrisy from a society that continues to attack Valter Roman with all sorts of allegations, that considers him an outright criminal, and that points out his "otherness" willy-nilly. On the other hand, Tismăneanu simply mentions that Roman (the person who, among other things, handled matters related to the capture of Imre Nagy) benefited from the regime - a fact which is not even denied by his son, but which causes sudden controversy when we have to accumulate evidence for an untenable point... While, at the same time, despite the fact that Roman, unlike Leonte Tismăneanu, was never sidelined, not only Leonte, but also his son, are theorized with full confidence to have themselves benefited!


 * That is false, and you know it. Petre Roman was a second-level figure, so in a sense it was a sidelining. And, yes, the Romanianization policy of Ceausescu had something in it, and this is something that can be indeed criticised. Dpotop 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case, you would still not refute the argument, but rather confirming it. Not to mention this: whatever sidelining he had done to him, Valter Roman was not thrown from the party. If Romanianization was the policy, then the whole "issue" of Tismăneanu's kinship would become utterly irrelevant, so why were you waving it in my face earlier? Dahn 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep mixing (like the report) the two periods of Romanian Communism. During the first, the Tismaneanu were a privileged family due to their Soviet background. During the second, they were discriminated due to their Soviet background and Jewish descent. Even for Tismaneanu (and you) this difference should be clear. Dpotop 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If that were true, it would also work for the Romans! Now, why is that so hard to grasp? Dahn 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But it is true for the Romans. They were not even near the policy-making circles in the last years of the Ceausescu regime. Dpotop 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the issue of "Tismăneanu's privilege" is dead and buried. Dahn 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the Ceausescu period, of course. For the pre-1960 period, not at all. Of course Tismaneanu left when he saw that even a PhD on historic materialism won;t do him good in Romania. I'd have done the same. Petre Roman was smart enough to choose a technical speciality. Dpotop 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Appeals to probability. And failure to note that Vladimir was 9 years old when his father was ousted from the party - since you say that he was sidelined for the rest of his life, all that press attack invoking privilege and silver spoons is hogwash. Dahn 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One could also perhaps mention the new editorial policy chez Jurnalul, in tune with "conservative" politics, but whatever. Dahn 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you talk. We're in the middle of contemporary Romanian political affairs conducted by means of presidential commissions and various newspapers. Dpotop 21:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, even when you contradict yourself, you are right, eh Dpotop? Dahn 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tismaneanu's PhD: title and abstract
Hello, I'm editing a bit the article Vladimir Tismaneanu, and I think it would be interesting to have here the title and abstract of his PhD thesis. I did quite a search on the Internet, and there's not mention about them. This is weird, given the notoriety of the guy. Does any of you have a reference? Even small pieces if information are useful, given that nothing exists upto now. Dpotop 11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was "Anti-Romanian discrimination" deleted?
Someone pointed out that the article Anti-Romanian discrimination was deleted, as can be seen here. Were you aware of this? If not, then there's a problem. Not that I appreciate this sort of articles, but every nation in Central and Eastern Europe seems to have one, and I presume we're not the the ones wit the least problems. Dpotop 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anti-Hungarian sentiment was deleted too, along with some others. See WP:AN/I. Khoikhoi 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears some discussion took place at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I feel that wikipedia politicians are going astray by applying policies arbitrarily and with no consultation. Dpotop 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW: until now, wikipedia seemed such an interesting place because all more or less existing oppinions has an expression on wikipedia. I certainly know of anti-Romanian, anti-Hungarian, anti-Jewish, anti-Russian, anti-Occident oppinions. They may be idiotic, but they exist and are professed by large masses (i.e. they must be expressed in any NPOV, as defined when I got here). Is wikipedia entering a new phase of politically-correct regulation? Dpotop 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I restored it because other similar articles still exist: Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Russophobia, etc. I think the same decision should be taken for all of them. Also, the decision should be taken by discussion and reaching consensus, not by some rouge admin. bogdan 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good move, Bogdan. I don't quite agree with the current title, but a snap deletion isn't the right course. In the same vein, I think you should consider restoring Serbophobia, Anti-Croatian sentiment and Anti-Bosniak sentiment, so there can be a full debate. The first of those in particular seemed pretty well-done (see here). None was perfect, and all were in need of big improvement, but the subjects themselves are notable and the fact that they "cause bad feelings" doesn't justify deleting them. Biruitorul 02:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For those articles however, there seems to be a consensus by admins to keep them deleted at WP:AN/I. You could always try deletion review... Khoikhoi 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, not worth it. Biruitorul 03:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Romania member of the EU
I am looking forward to welcoming you to the European Union in January 2007. With borders disappearing, there will be nothing to really discuss about, so life will be quite boring, I suppose :-). Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all. --KIDB 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't fear that we'll be left without our disputes but I greet sincerely every Romanian in the EU. That's a great moment for you and for us! Zello 15:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Romanians! I seriously doubt that national borders and identities will vanish with all these multinational alliances, in fact I hope they don't (wouldn't it be boring if it was the same everywhere?) but I sincerely and with great friendship would like to welcome our Romanian friends into the European Union. My best wishes for (I hope) your new economic prosperity, and my deepest hopes for an end to old rivalries and the beginning of a great friendship between Hungary and Romania. :) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and happy whatever else any of you celebrate. :) K. Lástocska 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Köszönöm everybody. Hopefully, this moment consecrates the fact that both our countries will be letting their civil societies speak for them, and not collective fears or illusions of might. All the best to you all. (Yo, KIDB, good to see you're back!) Dahn 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect: a) shouldn't the people rather than a group of self-appointed do-gooders that has anointed itself as "civil society" be speaking for the country? b) is this generally vile "civil society" not already speaking? And then, I believe that Romania should always have a guarded opinion - not necessarily fearful, just guarded - of all her neighbours except her one true friend, Serbia. If you look at the historical record, this just makes sense. If Hungary annexed Transylvania, Markó Béla would join in in a heartbeat, like these people. Finally, I don't think Romania should indulge in illusions of might; it should strive to be mighty, and it is in a very good position to do so. Mr Băsescu, for all his flaws, admits as much when speaking of a Bucharest-London-Washington axis. Biruitorul 23:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The people are the civil society. At least, the reasonably educated people are. My point was about opinions expressed out of familiarity, not out of ideological pressure and need to save face (or, in the case of people settled by the Communists into Transylvania, need to save privilege). Whether it is the intellectual who has learned not to lie, whether it is the businessman who has learned that all money is good money, whether it is the politician who attracts all sorts of votes in a community, that is what a defused society should comprise.
 * The term "reasonably educated" smacks of elitism. Becali has hovered at 40% in some polls - are those people not part of civil society too? Did the Iron Guard not once constitute a main pillar of civil society? Or must civil society always be respectably centre-left in orientation? What "privilege" to Romanians settled in Transylvania have? That land is our birthright, and we are there in a dominant position because it has belonged to us since the time of Decebal. (The ghost of Dacodava floats past us.) And speaking of politicians attracting cross-community support: it was Romanians who elected Hungarian mayors in Satu Mare and Jimbolia, and German mayors in Sibiu and Mediaş. You don't see Romanian mayors in Odorheiu Secuiesc, Târgu Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe, Miercurea-Ciuc, etc. And look at the 2004 results: a plurality in three counties - Mureş, Harghita and Covasna - voted, simply based on his ethnicity, for a man they knew had zero chance of winning. Biruitorul 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Reasonably" can simply mean "able to read" (I don't define it positively, so not necessarily elitist, but I can rather point out what Romanians were not when it came to this aspect). It is much more strange that a conservative such as yourself cites popularity as indicative of value, but I will answer the core of your Becali paradigm just below (bear with me).
 * Let me clarify: at some point popularity becomes difficult to ignore, not valuable. That is, if Becali were at 80%, I wouldn't consider his ideas valuable, but in a democracy, 40% of the electorate can't be dismissed - no party at the last election gained that much, for instance. I doubt every poll respondent who says he does actually intends to vote for him, but still, we ought to pay attention to those numbers. Biruitorul 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Iron Guard and all such experiments are illustrations of Romania's traditional failure to encourage normal relations inside its society. This land was exposed to a mixture of enlightened despotism and populist measures. The Iron Guard,and this should perhaps shock the capitalist side of you, started as a move to block the access of capable individuals to education based on a racial basis, and the need for self-preservation of a large class of young people who felt not only that they were entitled by God to become an overgrown bureaucracy, but also that they deserved to hijack the state when it refused to award them th privilege. You tell me who's left and who's center in Romania. (It's obvious that I would rather have a center-left message as a conclusion of civil debate, but I'd settle for many other things just as long as a debate has taken place. As for the recent Arturo Ui ascension, it seems that Romanians are still incapable of respecting another - hence all the disgusting and carefully staged Becalist attacks on anyone who disagrees with him - ultimately diversionary, because he has not even shown that he can identify Romania's problems, let alone deal with them.) Oh, btw: it may interest you to know that Becali is a Euro-enthusiast!
 * Civil society, as I understand it, is any organisation that lies between the state and the family. Thus, the Iron Guard fits that definition (except perhaps for the 9/40-1/41 period). The state ought to be neutral and not encourage the development of political movements, and indeed Romania's governing elite were largely against the Guard in the 1930s. I'm aware of how the Guard began, and while not outright defending what happened, I can say that I sympathise, given that young men who grew up expecting to succeed their fathers in positions of power that their families had held for ages were suddenly displaced by foreigners. Perhaps their course of action was misguided, but their anger was entirely understandable. It's difficult to tell these days - the "far-right" PRM seems quite leftist, while the "centre-left" PSD often takes stances to the right of the "centre-right" DA. Becali did hand out money to flood victims and restore electricity to Ferentari when no one else lifted a finger. I've heard of Becali's Euro-enthusiasm, but once he finds out what the EU actually is, he may change his mind. Biruitorul 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you can do better than the Decebalus comment.
 * Maybe, but while I'm not a Dacodavist per se, I do see the kingdom of Dacia as the embryo of modern Romania, and it is Daco-Romanian continuity - incontrovertibly proven through archaeology - that gives the Romanian people the right to inhabit and indeed possess Transylvania. Biruitorul 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The mayor vs. presidency comment is faulty. The mayor part confirms my hopes (and I think it has an ethnical equivalent on the same level), and the presidency one does nothing to my point (except I could add that, where Frunda to be running again, I would vote for him, and that, at the time of the elections, Băsescu had hit the trail telling people willy-nilly about his opposition to all sorts of autonomy - because he was lovingly gazing into the demented eyes of PRM voters). Dahn 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I'd be careful about the term "demented"; Vadim took a third of the vote in 2000 - are a third of Romanians demented? Second, Băsescu is interested in preserving the state's integrity and there's nothing wrong with reaching out to a slightly more unhinged crowd in seeking victory. However, opposition to autonomy may simply be a core belief of his; indeed that's true for most ethnic-Romanian politicians. You may vote for Frunda, but almost all Magyars voted for Markó Béla, showing that ethnic politics is alive and well in that sector (while Cluj resoundingly dropped Funar in 2004). Biruitorul 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, in any event, my statement also worked for Hungary, and the populism that has also blossomed there.
 * Markó Béla will probably join in (probably), but that is his business. The main goal of a sane society should not be to prevent people from thinking about autonomy or separation, but from preventing a minority of people to decide for a majority. The Realpolitik of this argument has already been emphasized; let's see if we can live with its democratic aspect.
 * The main goal of a sane society should be not to have Romanians of convenience like Markó Béla, or if not him, then certainly Szász Jenő and his ilk. People should commit to the country they live in and not nurse dreams of undoing Trianon (my own hopes of undoing the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty notwithstanding). That doesn't mean cultural repression, but it means loyalty should lie with Bucharest and not Budapest when all is said and done. Apostol Bologa had to fight for Hungary; the Székely should be prepared to do so for Romania. Separatism and anti-national moves are unhealthy and serve no purpose except to sow further discord. Biruitorul 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In 1916, Romania was full of Transylvanian deserters. They evn had the nerve to join the Romanian Army in fighting the Double Monarchy. Rebreanu's brother/Bologa was asked to fight for Hungary against Romania, and the book is named after what happened to people who had second thoughts. These were, however, second thoughts about fighting Romania, not about fighting for Hungary,and since EU membership decreases the possibility of Ru-Hu wars to the point of ridicule, I think you have nothing to fear but Szeklers as consciencious objectors. Dahn 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the book's context. That said, had I been an official sitting in Budapest in 1912/3, wondering how my Romanian charges in Transylvania might respond to the next war, I would have good reason to doubt their loyalty while expecting that, as Austro-Hungarian citizens, they would fight for their own state, even if against their ethnic co-nationals. Similarly, I have my doubts about what Romania's Magyars might do during a war. But as you say, it's unlikely. Romania would have no reason to start one, and Hungary would be crushed as in 1919, când elementele cele mai crâncene, cele mai şovine ale burghezimii reacţionare au înlăturat cu o cruzime înspăimântătoare forţele de democraţie populară care veniseră la conducerea statului printr-o alianţă zdrobitoare a clasei muncitoare cu ţărănimea muncitorească. Biruitorul 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On "Romania's might", I'll take the Poporanist stand: Romania will always be behind. The only thing that Romania can and should do is not to fall too far behind. As I have pointed out on the talk page, we'll always end up too far behind if we start theorizing that we belong some place else. Dahn 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Romania has a natural role to play as a great regional power or at least one that punches above its weight in international affairs (like Israel or Australia, for instance). This will especially be the case once Romania's brothers across the Prut are brought back into their motherland's loving embrace. But even today, Romania and Poland are the two key countries between Germany and Russia, and both should strive for an imposing role on the world stage - though one grounded in reality and not given to delusions of grandeur. Biruitorul 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Better safe than sorry and don't count your eggs before they've hatched is what I say. Dahn 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So did Neville Chamberlain. Biruitorul 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes... Thank you for your very well-intentioned wishes, but I for one am a diehard eurosceptic. I cringe at the loss of national sovereignty that will effectively transfer power from Bucharest to Brussels: is this what we fought for? I bemoan the whittling away of the traditional Romanian lifestyle that will come about through the decline of the farming sector. I loathe the EU for a multitude of reasons: corruption, inefficiency, propaganda, hostility to religion, elitism, an enlightened autocratic mindset, centralizing tendencies, a socialist mentality, insipid leadership, teleological assumptions, a post-modern view of history, etc., almost ad infinitum. But hope we have always: soon the whole rotten edifice, already breaking apart at the seams, will come crashing to the earth, God willing. Not that I think Romania should be pursuing an adversarial policy toward Hungary, but the good that the EU may or may not be doing (ie, the single market) can easily be achieved through a Europe of sovereign nation-states, without the hideous EU superstructure overlaying it. Biruitorul 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mon petit grain de sel... First of all, I sincerely thank our Hungarian co-editors for their greetings. Dpotop 09:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, the discussion about civil society and nationalism is very interesting. It seems to reflet an important polarization of the Romanian society (but which I also saw in other countries). On one hand, you have the self-proclaimed "civil society", mainly formed of the offshoots of the Soros foundation, and the various branches of international animal/minority/etc rights organizations. In a "state vs. society" discussion, I would consider these organization more as state, than as society. Why? Because I suspect that many of the Romanians that take part in them have some direct "material" interest, like regular state employees. On the other hand, Romania has practically no self-grown non-profit organizations representing true interests of the Romanian public. Even the neighborhood associations are a relic of the Communist times and seldom take position to defend neighborhood interests. Maybe the only organization I saw built bottom-up was "Forumul Academic Roman" [www.forum-academic.com]. Dpotop 09:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that Romania doesn't really have a "civil society". It has some groups financed and lobbying for foreign-inspired "great ideas". Few Romanians will participate in these societies because they feel it (even though they may intellectually understand and accept the beuty of these ideals). Dpotop 09:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More fundamentally, few structures in Romania are built bottom-up to connect people into small functional networks (which is, I believe, the main idea of civil society). One notable exception I know of are the "neighborhood networks", which are not simple computer networks -- they show people can work together in ad-hoc structures to do what they want. Dpotop 09:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I don't see how a true civil society (not some collection of foreign-originated NGOs) can prevent the raise of extremisms. See the US, where religious extremism was built bottom-up. Dpotop 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points. I especially agree that civil society needs to be in some sense organic. Of course Romania has a lot to learn from the West, but a) not everything in the West is better than in Romania, something I think the present civil society doesn't appreciate, and b) it ought to be indigenized and to cater to local concerns as much as possible. For instance nepotism in schools is a real problem faced by actual Romanians; by contrast, journalists' rights organisations, while not without merit, don't really reflect most people's concerns. That is, I don't think such groups aren't important in their own way, but they only serve a very small elite sector, rather than a broader cross-section of society. Biruitorul 01:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean, nepotism in schools or in universities? Dpotop 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Concerning journalist organizations. I feel that an organization does *not* need to reflect the concerns of all people. Instead, it must reflect genuine concerns of the people involved, and their desire to advance on the matter. Journalists' rights organizations are therefore very useful in a civil society, but there you talk again about the top of the iceberg. Dpotop 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Second, these organizations must be considered as meaningful. How many decisions of a mayor were taken or overturned in Romania as a result of pressure from such organizations? Given the number of votes needed by a mayor, only a big strike or manifestation can make them do something. And even then, the average Romanian will vote against its material interest because of media hammering. He'll just say "Totusi, e baiat bun". Dpotop 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW: I recall some such organizations existed: the organization of the guys that bought Dacia cars before 1989, the organization of Caritas victims. These seem to me very legitimate as civil society organizations. But not alone, but with thousands of other organizations representing other small groups. Dpotop 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean nepotism in both. I agree: such groups are both meaningful and useful (regardless of what I may have said earlier). However, mass groups lobbying on behalf of broader interests might also be a good idea, but those are difficult to achieve. Biruitorul 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One caveat, though: what "religious extremism" in the US are you referring to? Reconstructionists and Dominionists, who actually want a theocracy, are a rather small subset of fundamentalist Protestants as a whole. I find much to disagree with in the latter group's theology, but by and large, they don't aim to subvert the US Constitution, but merely to advance certain more reasonable demands, like allowing for prayer in state schools. Biruitorul 01:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When talking about religious extremism I'm more or less talking about the conservative christian arguments that are today molded into american laws and policies, both foreign and domestic. I feel that the perceived division between conservatives and liberals corresponds more and more today to the division between conservative religious and the rest of the world. And I hate having the citizens of the first world power voting as president a guy that has "visions" (a religious concept), and publicly play as a "born-again" conservative christian to get votes, while ruining the state through idiotic spending, and putting the USA in opposition on important subjects with most other countries. And all of this, while restricting civil liberties based on bogus arguments and not addressing the main economic problem the USA have today: its trade deficit. Dpotop 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm quite conservative myself. But decent conservative policies usually don't mean more spending. Or they result in some internal development. Dpotop 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, I quite agree with you here. What Bush represents is "Big-Government Conservatism", but that sounds quite oxymoronic to me. A conservative cuts spending and reduces government interference in citizens' lives, but he has done just the opposite, to an obscene degree. And that's because his party has largely been captured by Evangelical Christians who care little about Russell Kirk, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, etc., and are more concerned with the Apocalypse. Biruitorul 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the expression "Big-Government Conservatism". Many compare nowadays the USA with the Roman empire. I prefer my own comparison with the second Rome -- Constantinople. The greek medieval empire started its decline when its middle class (the green deme and the stratiotic property) were toppled by the "big-government conservatism", the aristocracy of the blue deme. Dpotop 14:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I forgot something but it was too obvious to me to mention it: I am glad to be able to see my fellow Hungarians living in Romania joining a wider European community where borders will not divide us any more. I wish you my brothers and sisters that the Romanian majority will understand: as ambassadors of Central Europe, Transylvania used to be part of, you are great and valuable contributors to Romania. The Hungarian minority should be supported in an European way, like in the Basque Country, like the Swedish minority in Finland, like the German-speaking people in Southern Tirol, the German Community in Belgium, like the Scottish Nation in the UK etc. Welcome to Europe. --KIDB 11:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, welcome to the European Union, and suggest to buy your groceries before next week when everything will start getting more expensive. István 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A heartfelt welcome to every citizen of Romania and Bulgaria. (Whatever is bad about the EU, I think it's time now to look at the good things!) And have a Happy New Year too! :) KissL 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael I of Romania
Apparently there has been some weirdness going on in the article Michael I of Romania. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board
I initially thought that the East European board was a euphemism for those large Slavic countries who found a politically-correct common denominator. It's just recently that I noticed they are expecting other national boards to join in. They don't seem to do much there, but it could still be a good place to visit. I don't know who should add or be added, but I'm running this by all you guys. Dahn 22:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we should become involved. At the moment, the Eastern Europe noticeboard seems to consist of the "core" Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), as well as Poland, which has historical links to the latter two. I'm not sure if the noticeboard is intended for "Eastern Europe" in the very general, Cold War sense (i.e. up to Czechia), which would only then include Romania (otherwise part of Southeastern Europe). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They still have a: "Please add your flag and a ref to your noticeboard". I was thinking for old times' sake. Dahn 23:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, the definition of Southeastern Europe is debatable, Romania has been argued not to be part of it (or to be "both part of it and of x region"), and it's not clear if the board isn't going to be/shouldn't be expanded. Dahn 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should participate on an ad hoc basis. If we need to collaborate on something, like Polish-Romanian Alliance, then it could be useful. And we should check it periodically for activity. But with only two posts this year, it looks like a dead board at this point. If we seriously want to revive it, then we should come up with some good reasons why we'd want that, and then go tell the Poles, Russians, whoever on their respective boards. Biruitorul 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Deşteaptă-te, române!
At Talk:Deşteaptă-te, române! we now seem to have a decent translation of the remaining verses. Could someone more truly bilingual than me please check this before I "promote" these into the article? - Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Template for history of Romania
For some reason known only to him, Greier has replaced the template for articles in the history of Romania series, removing the inclusion of Regulamentul Organic (an article where the old template lives on...) and has added some sort of succession box which is hard on the eyes and, well, inaccurate (in a tradition of inaccurate contributions).

It's high time we look into this matter with logical arguments. A template for the history of Romania needs more additions and different sets of relations established between the articles. For one, there is no justification for Greater Romania to feature as an article in succession to the Kingdom of Romania: Greater Romania was never an offical name for what remained, in effect, the Kingdom.

Here's my suggestion for a complete, proper, and relevant template. The rlations between articles are as is:
 * Prehistory [note: the name of the article is awkward and it should be changed, IMO; also, please update your watchpages for this one, as something tells me it is likely to go downhill]
 * Of course the name it`s awkward. It`s not made by Dachhchhhchn. Greier 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course your English it's crap... Dahn 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Prehistoric France, Prehistoric Britain, Prehistoric Spain], [[Prehistoric Japan, etc... Ouups, my bad, I forgot that they are not blessed with specimens like Dhhchchhchan. Greier 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dacia
 * Roman Dacia
 * Origin of the Romanians
 * Early Middle Ages
 * Middle Ages
 * Early Modern Times
 * National awakening
 * Regulamentul Organic
 * Kingdom of Romania
 * Greater Romania
 * National Legionary State
 * World War II
 * Communist Romania
 * Romanian Revolution
 * Romania since 1989

Dahn 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Opposed due to the câcat (Origin of Romanians????) and inability to accept Dhans ego (Regulamentul Organic????). Also see WP:OWN. If others are weak enough to fall for your logorrhea, that is not what you can say about me. Greier 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's cuddle. Dahn 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You also invited me to a spooning... Hmm, I recommend you Adultfriendfiender.com... Greier 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Feisty. Dahn 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You like that, don`t you? Blue balls, blue balls... Greier 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure put that mean old doctor in his place, Tootsie. Dahn 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. BTW, I think there should be some other important subarticles of the "National awakening", like the 1821 and the 1848 Revolutions, but we don't have articles about them. bogdan 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The "National awakening" article, which needs to be completely rewritten, should function as an overlook on events which are otherwise hard to connect, all listed as main articles over respective sections: (1) the Wallachian rebellion of 1821; (2) Regulamentul; (3) the three distinct and quite contradictory revolutions of 1848; (4) Union (where the main link should be to a future article on Partida Naţională - such an article would cover most common ground for the casual reader); (5) War of Independence. The end of the article should thus be 1881, where the next-in-line article begins. Dahn 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Biruitorul for admin
I've nominated Biruitorul as a candidate to be an administrator. He has accepted the nomination. Polling is in progress: Requests for adminship/Biruitorul. I'm assuming that pretty much everyone who watches this page is familiar with his work, so your and votes will be well-informed and your comments particularly valuable. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cercetaşii României
Can anyone help fill in some of the biographies in the history section of this article? Chris 17:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, is there a project template for the talk pages of articles? Chris 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't have a project template. Is anyone here interested in taking that on? - Jmabel | Talk 07:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of the greats and why not to
This has been bugging me for a while now. I kept seeing pictures such as this one, this one and this one. I'm going to leave aside that articles they stand for are messy to say the least, and concentrate on the watercolours' tackyness (cheap and awful renditions of photographs that they are - reminding me of school murals from the 1980s), as well as on the fact that they are subject to copyright. Really, couldn't we come up with better pictures? For one, I am about to upload Asachi's portrait as painted by C. D. Stahi during the man's lifetime - I just want to know if users would object to having the watercolours deleted from wikipedia. Dahn 12:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted the Asachi and Alecsandri pictures. The Eminescu picture is on commons and it's used by many wikipedias -- It would be better to replace it with a good scan of his famous photograph. bogdan 12:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks.But you will note that the other two have also been uploaded to Commons:, , and we also have , (this one has another version in the Ioan Slavici article...), and . Dahn 13:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I marked them as having no source and they'll be deleted within a week or so. bogdan 11:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dahn 12:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The commons is in an admin crisis, so I got myself an adminship and deleted them outright. :-) bogdan 20:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dahn, if these are recent enough to have copyright issues, then those can be easily raised on Commons. My guess is that at least the Eminescu one would have been published before 1923, and should not have such issues. Even if we don't want to use these images, if they don't have copyright problems they should remain on Commons. - Jmabel | Talk 08:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think they're all more recent and they're based on older paintings and photographs. But since we don't even know the author, so we can't tell when they were created... bogdan 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To both: I was trying to delegate the raising of the issue in Commons, since I have not handled such issues before :). As noted by Bogdan, they do have copyright issues - and this, not the kitschiness, was the reson for my original query. I don't know who the author is, but I want to ask my Romanian homies to recall their late childhood and early teens: I distinctly remember the style of the person who illustrated the 5th grade Romanian language textbook and Dumitru Almaş' Povestiri Istorice, and then take a good look at the pics in Commons - they appear have the same creator (he or she is, in fact, likely to still be very much alive). (I remind Anittas, if he is reading this, that I have asked him to remove a picture by the same author, one he had used on his Battle of Vaslui article.) Also noted by Bogdan is the fact that all of these drawings are copies of pictures that are for sure PD - we should have strived to find those to begin with. Dahn 12:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dahn, I think you're talking about Serban Andreescu, who's indeed very much alive.Dunemaire 13:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I guess that's him. Out of curiosity - did you reach for your copy of Povestiri Istorice to find that out ;)? Dahn 13:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I googled it - but I still own a copy of the book so that would have been possible also:) Dunemaire 17:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I still have my copy in the attic, together with my stamp collection, 1990s computer games and other such things. :-) bogdan 20:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan wikipedia, again
Believe it or not, but now User:Node_ue and User:Khoikhoi are maniputating a german admin: de:Benutzer Diskussion:Pill. Nice way to do it: a Russian and an American are pushing a German into taking the sysop status of User:Bogdangiusca, who supposedly doesn't know "Moldovan". Dpotop 09:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tsk, tsk. Khoikhoi 18:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a question to both of you. There is an ongoing vote to close that project, and move all its contnets to the Romanian Wikipedia. Is it possible to put universal block to all those articles, so as to prevent any non-sense warring until the vote is finished? I don't like what I see around, when users become agreesive, and especially when educated users are slowly dragged into that mess. I can not think of a better solution than to freeze everything until the fate of mo.wikipedia is decided. And the second question, what is the closing date of the vote?:Dc76 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically, yes. Practically, the wikipedia ruling boards don't want to do it. They accepted the "temporary closure" as it exists today, but users such as Node_ue managed to lead many on these boards into thinking that those who require the closure are "Romanian expansionists". This is why even Bogdangiusca or Ronline are sometimes treated as "POV pushers" on this subject. FUD works, and some users are willing to use it. Dpotop 06:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Casablanca"
This is a rather eclectic item but still somewhat on-topic. If you were in Romania during the summer of 1995, you probably remember the song "Casablanca": it played everywhere–on buses, in people's living rooms, in stores, on the street, etc. However, I can find very little information on the song or the singer, Jessica Jay. I know that it was originally performed by Bertie Higgins on a 1982 album, but that's about it. (Also, Jay's accent sounds Irish.) Based on my searches, it seems to have only been a big phenomenon in Romania, and nowhere else. So, with a view to an eventual article: who is Jessica Jay? And why did her song meet such success in Romania? Or if you don't know, do you at least remember what I'm talking about? Biruitorul 06:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "I wanna be where the Sun is shining, amore mio..." Wait... it wasn't. It was "a kiss is just a kiss in Casablanca...", wasn't it? Or did it get all rythmicky later on? Dahn 06:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As the linked lyrics show, it was "a kiss is still a kiss..." Biruitorul 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Publishers
I was recently looking at List of publishers (which is specific to English-language publishers) and had the thought that a List of Romanian-language publishers would be a good thing. - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since no one else has stepped up, I started this myself with about half a dozen from my bookshelf. I'm sure that you natives can add dozens (past and present). - Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories for villages
Which version would be better:
 * Category:Villages in Vâlcea County
 * Category:Communes and villages in Vâlcea County
 * Category:Localities in Vâlcea County

I would favour the first one. The articles on the communes usually talk about the village which gives the name and have links to articles about the other villages within the commune. bogdan 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I think we should consider redirecting villags to their respective communes (as separate sections or not). Just how big do we expect an article on a village to get? I'd go with the second. Dahn 14:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, villages which had historically little to do one with the other are put within the same commune. bogdan 14:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, but instead of creating thousands of minuscule articles, we could help the reader by sectioning an article on the respective commune. Dahn 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanians
I would like to bring into everyone's attention the new developments that are taking place at the Romanians article, in particular the behavior of User:Khoikhoi, who has displayed an anti-Romanian bias in the past and who is currently trying to push his own POV by backing it up with false sources (see History of the article: Romanians). Besides being rude and ironic, mocking comments which urged him to display a more moderate attitude (also see his November 12 addition to his own user account where he mockingly "claims to be proud to be Romanian"), he has also asked for the help of User:Mikkalai (a user who likewise has displayed an anti-Romanian attitude in the past) in "doing something about Constantzeanu" (which so happens to be me) -> you can see this on Mikkalai's talk page here, User talk:Mikkalai. I will be curious to see how this "doing something" will translate itself? Or will Mikkalai also brand me "a sock-puppet of Bonnie", just because I have the guts to challenge the frivolous tactics that these two users have used so far. This call to "do something about this guy" is extreemly dangerous and goes 100% against Wikipedia rules on Administrators, where Jimbo Wales himself has made it clear that nobody should abuse this responsibiliy or use it as a sort of position of "authority", which is what Mikkalai and Khoikhoi have exactly been doing (also see their bullying on Dc76's talkpage where they accuse him of beying Bonnie). I am bringing this issue here because first off, the article is in the list of "Problem articles" bellow and secondly because the two users I have mentioned here have been heavily involved in POV pushing Romania-related articles, an attitude that has been totally unconstructive, in my opinion and which has to stop.Dapiks 02:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't stop immediately personal attacks, you will be blocked. `'mikkanarxi 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the kind of bullying I am talking about. When have I personally attacked someone. I am simply stating a grievance that I have with you and Khoikhoi. And under wikipedia rules I can make this grievance public, including taking this to an Arbitration Committee for "Administrator abuse".Dapiks 02:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are strongly recommended to learn where to draw the line between "grievances" and "slander". For starters, I suggest you to review No personal attacks. `'mikkanarxi 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You might not realize this, but writing "If you don't ..., you will be blocked." is a threat, especially when made by an administrator. A new, unexperiensed user can be easely abused by an administrator. There is sometimes a clear tendency to use such sentences when an administrator wants to push his/her POV. Just think how does a new user feels when his/her edits are reversed with such comments.


 * What qualifies as a personal attack and what does not - there is a procedure and guidline for that to decide, which is always done case by case. It is not an automatic determination. You can not just say "this is a personal attack". Someone neutral has to make that decision. The same neutral person should recommend the action: in some cases a simple request will suffice, in others a ban might be needed. People involved in a dispute about one or several articles might easily tend to regard the other's actions as personal attacks. Dapiks raised a legitimate concern above. He did so in a very passionate way, which obviously was not necessary. But that does not diminish the substance. It is possible either to address the core of the problem, or to ramble non-sense at each other. Anyone interested in solving the core of the problem?


 * The core of the issue is (in my oppinion):


 * 1) What if an "edit war" starts between a well-experienced administrator who pushes (maybe a pseudo-scientific) POV, and an unexperienced relatively new user? Can this administrator use his administrative powers to block the later user, or advise another administrator to block the user? Chances are that if administrator's POV is too obvious, someone else will join. But what if for a moment there are no other users interested in the issue, or they are afraid to be blocked as well? Is there a way to get to a fair arbitration? Will an aribitrer be predisposed to rather side with an well-established administrator, whose contributions on other topics might be very valuable, and who pushes POV only in a certain concentrated area? How is it possible to ensure that the powers given to an administrator are used responsibly and are not abused?
 * 2) Such a problem will most likely leave at first sight an impression of being a personal off-topic dispute. How is it possible to ensure that the two parties only talk about the subject without attacking each other, and without creating in the article history a race for the blackest comment on the other's edits.


 * Personally, I am very surprized that this problem occured, since I have collaborated in the past with both Khoikhoi and Dapiks, and they always seemed civillized and constructive, at least when they spoke with me or editted alongside me. I know this is too much to ask from users, but I want to ask from the real persons: Would you both, as well as Mikkalai, come here and say you regret this misunderstanding came between you? Sounding more appologetic than needed does not diminish one's dignity, sounding less appologetic diminishes one's intelligence. If you have an issue with POV on some articles, why didn't you come here and sign a simple sentance: "We found ourselves in an edit war, awyone whats to help us out of an awkward situation?" Is it really so hard to solve this in civilized tone, without threats? :Dc76 23:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I always advise against administrators using their admin powers in conflicts that involve themselves. And while Constantzeanu / Dapiks remarks here are a bit harsh, they do not seem to me like personal attacks. They are focused almost entirely on the conduct, not the character, of the people involved. There is no rule that people's conduct is beyond discussion. The closest thing I see here to a personal attack is a suggestion of a bad attitude, which seems to me to be within the pale. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Blat
Someone split/disambiguated the articel Blat, and then I moved the Romanian part into a reasonable English-language title, Match fixing in Romanian football. Please update your watch lists (and the article, too). `'mikkanarxi 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with voting
There is a problem with voting on this page. It says I don't exist as user, and only my IP address is registered. But I can login, edit and vote everywhere else. I suspect it is a softwere problem, and that many other people are hindered to do the same thing as me. Could you, please, help. Thank you! :Dc76 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I got the answer to this question at WikiHelp, and I think other people would be interested to know that:


 * 1) to vote on Wikimedia you need a separate meta account, and you can create one right away
 * 2) the vote is only conducted on wikimedia, not on wikipedia itself. I move for a similar vote to take place on wikipedia. Anyone would second my motion? Anyone can advise on where this proposal should be submitted? :Dc76 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact I later got a more specific (I would say professional) answer at WikiHelp, which since useful, will permanently stay at my user page. (If you ever enounter similar problems.):Dc76 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)