Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 9 August 2006

Romania portal

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors - and editors interested in Romania-related articles - to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under its relevant category.

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-02-15 This page attempts to organize and keep track of the articles on Romania and Romania-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Each article is assigned a level of completeness according to the following scale: - stub, a paragraph or two, completely inadequate. - maybe a few paragraphs, but coverage is inadequate, still missing some basic information. - Many paragraphs, covers all, or almost all, basic information, provides a bit of depth. - Featured article status, or has gone as far as it can go, as in the case of a simple list. When rating articles keep in mind the subject at hand. A very broad topic could be considered inadequate even if it is much longer than another article on a very narrow topic. Please update the page as you see fit. Recently added: Please put articles here after adding and leave them for one week Ioan Flueraș Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Localities: Fieni, Drăgăneşti-Olt, Călimăneşti, Târgu Cărbuneşti, Plopeni, Negreşti, Valea lui Mihai, Titu, Bolintin-Vale, Boldești-Scăeni, Videle, Rovinari, Drăgăneşti-Olt, Vălenii de Munte For more see Portal:Romania/New article announcements Create & Translate This section is dedicated to translations from Romanian wiki. See also Translation into English. To create This section lits articles that don't exist on any wiki. If known article exists at Romanian Misplaced Pages, please list in the next section Blaj Assemblies, Moldavian Revolution of 1848, Ioan Buteanu, Timotei Cipariu, Ioan Dragoş, Ioan Maiorescu, Alexandru Vlahuţă, Sorcova, Pluguşorul, Ion Neculce, Siguranţa Statului To create and translate from Romanian Wiki This section lists articles that exist on Romanian wiki, but not on English wiki. If a stub or larger article exists on English wiki, but the Romanian one is larger, please list in the next section. ro:Frontul Democratic Român (1989) ro:Institutul Revoluţiei Române din Decembrie 1989 ro:Asociaţia 21 Decembrie din Bucureşti ro:Asociaţia Revoluţionarilor Fără Privilegii ro:Consiliul Frontului Salvării Naţionale (we need desambiguization page with the political party National Salvation Front ro:Consiliul Provizoriu de Uniune Naţională ro:Graţieri şi amnistii legate de revoluţia română din 1989 To translate and destub/expand from Romanian Misplaced Pages This section lists articles that exists on both Romanian and English wiki, but the Romanian one is better and needs to be translated into English. Manuc's Inn To translate and or destub/expand from English into Romanian None at this time. Expand This section is dedicated to expansion or existing articles. See also Romania stubs and subcategories Wallachian uprising of 1821 1977 Bucharest Earthquake Dacian Fortresses of the Orăştie Mountains Metrorex Mititei Wooden Churches of Maramureş Apuseni Mountains Petru Maior Suceava Făgăraş Mountains In Peer review To improve to Featured Articles standard Bucharest ' Romania ' Sibiu In Featured article candidates To fix To fix various problems in articles notability check for hundreds of Romania-related stubs To find images Remove when several imgages added Dacian Fortresses of the Orăştie Mountains Painted churches of northern Moldavia Danube Delta To clean up/wikify/copyedit/etc. Remove if no tag. Add if a tag present. None at this time. Projects needing help None at this time.

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5

Links

• Portal:Romania
• Portal:Romania/New article announcements
• Portal:Bucharest

News and announcements

Template:Ukrainian historical regions

Please check the new template which includes Marmaroshchyna as part of modern Ukraine. Cheers, Ghirla 10:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Satu Mare county model

I think the Lead section of Satu Mare can lead to a formulation that would make the Lead NPOV. The fact Satu Mare has a significant hungarian minority could be considered a relevant feature for this county, and others like it. I think mentioning the Hungarian minority in the lead is NPOV and relevant, and will make the mention to the name by which hungarians refer to this county natural. I would formulate Satu Mare county of Romania, capital Satu Mare. The county has a significant Hungarian minority. Hungarians refer to Satu Mare with the name Szatmar. Thus providing the name by which Hungarians refer to the county does not have the weight of an alternative name in english sources. Criztu 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an approved wikipeda custom for minority language names in the lead - brackets and italic. There are countless examples for this all over here. In the meantime - while preaching about Satu Mare County model - Criztu deleted Hungarian names from every Transylvania county articles. The whole problem was created by Criztu who is not able to accept the wikipedia customs which give some weight for minority language names. There are rules and values on this site that are non-compatible with chauvinism. Zello 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Zello, and am simply tired of humoring Criztu with replies. Dahn 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We are tired of your replies...HAHAHA--211.180.51.14 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

After all, how old are you? Twelve? No, you can't be twelve - your English is partly acceptable. Then, you must have had problems growing up. Not enough iodine in the water? Please, seek help or compensate by drinking a tall glass of iodine. As for the rest, my name is Dan Anton Dima. Anyone can find that out by sending me emails. That you have both the audacity and the idiocy to assume that it would do more than merely annoy me by making that public is beyond me; that you have the lack of human decency to ignore a common sense rule you promised you'd abide by, and then attempt your hand at some skrewed-up form of blackmail, is beyond all comprehension. You are a disgusting fascist cornered into mental prostitution. I would not even defecate on you or your supposed army. Dahn 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Criztu so far has been polite and civil (unlike some of the IPs who have contributed to this discussion), but I think his arguments are on the whole rather illogical and go against a Misplaced Pages policy established by months, if not years, of consensus. Remember that Misplaced Pages has always been more pluralistic than Britannica, and for that reason, it tends to accept a broader range of information, rather than just dealing with nation-state POVs on certain issues. Ronline ✉ 08:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Criztu will delete every Hungarian word, which in my view is perfect. Hungarian is not official language in Romania. --211.180.51.14 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia

I intent on renaming all articles of Rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia as follows: instead of Vlad III the Impaler, Vlad III of Wallachia. i know my actions are not the most diplomatic, and i just moved Vlad III Dracula to Vlad III the Impaler, but i think Vlad III of Wallachia would be better Criztu 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not and say we did. Dahn 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative words for Germans

Does Romanian have alternative words for Germans, as in slang? If so please add them, with a small explanation and perhaps translation at the following article: Alternative words for Germans. Thanks in advance, Rex 15:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Names of cities in their infoboxes

Hi. There is currently a dispute going on at Talk:Oradea and Talk:Satu Mare about which names should be placed in the infoboxes of the respective articles. I support placing both the Romanian and Hungarian names in the infobox, considering Hungarian is an officially-recognised language in both of those cities, because the Hungarian population makes up more than 20% of the population. Thus, according to Romanian minority rights law, the local government is obliged to use Hungarian in public administration, justice, education and signage, alongside Romania. In Oradea, for example, the City Hall discloses its monthly newsletter in both Romanian and Hungarian, inscriptions on public institutions are in both languages, and the signs you see when entering Oradea also have the Hungarian name under the Romanian name. For cities which have another officially-recognised language alongside Romanian, I have inserted the name in the respective language in the infobox; see Budeşti, Salonta, Miercurea-Ciuc, Sfântu Gheorghe, Târgu-Mureş. The Hungarian names have been removed persistently at Oradea and Satu Mare by User:Anonimu and Criztu. I feel that this is misleading since the public administration in both of these cities in bilingual, and not unilingually-Romanian. What is the overall opinion here? Ronline ✉ 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ronline, as you know (and as I have mentioned on at least some relevant talk pages) I agree with you completely here. - Jmabel | Talk 21:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me paste what i've already said about this (from the archive and from oradea talk page)

1. I don't think it's a good idea, since they aren't "officially" official names. The comparison with cities in countries like Finland or Ireland is irrelevant, since those countries are officially bilingual, not the case of Romania. currently, only the romanian parliament has the right to change or modify the name of a city in Romania. If you show me any law adopted by the parliament that says "the name of Rom city is changed to Rom-Hun/Rom-Rro/Rom-Ser" i'll accept alternative names used by local non-romanian population in the infobox.
2. There are cities in Europe that have officially 2 names . see Bozen-Bolzano, Aoste-Aosta, Donostia-San Sebastián, Abanto y Ciérvana-Abanto Zierbena just to show some examples. This is not the case for any city, town or village in Romania. Btw all the cities i mentioned have the two names stated in the english version of their site. While the site of Oradea doesn't even have a hungarian version, while oradea is the only nane used in the romanian, english and french versions. So i'll leave only the official (ie romanian) name in the infoboxes of cities of romania. It's not like i want to hide any alternative name, since they're all present in the first sentence of the articles

So until you find some document that explicitely says these towns& cities officialy have two names (and i mean no original research like "in that doc says bla bla, and that's almost like saying its official"). Don't worry about those other cities. I will deal with them later. I have edited only Satu Mare and Oradea for now because they're in my watchlist. Anonimu 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am actually neutral on the infobox issue (unlike my full support for including Hungarian etc names in the lead). I don't think the problem was ever posed as to what level of bilingualism the town needs to have for the alternatives to be included in the infobox, and I would support any decision that would lead to a resolution (by resolution, I mean a version of articles that both Ro and Hu contributors revert to when Bonaparte creates himself yet another sockpuppet). Dahn 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to have hungarian names in the articles. I will agree when New York and all the american cities will have in spanish and chinese. Don't agree with double standards. A magyarized process in 2006 is not welcome here. So, you may talk as much as you want "you smart guys like Dahn...."--222.109.87.130 07:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte, that is just lame - as is your abhorrent threat on a recent edit summary. Now git. Dahn 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shut up and fuck off, do you understand Dan? We are smarter than you, so I don't give a dime on you. Now git Dan. Don't challenge us! --195.78.228.23 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If I promised you something we'll tell you now that not any more. Things will change if you challenge us, do you understand D.A.D.? --195.78.228.23 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The New York and "Hungarian names in Romania" situations are very different. The only official language of New York (though in fact there is no legislated official language AFAIK) is English. That is to say: Spanish is not officially-recognised, no matter what percentage of the population Spanish-speaking people make up. In Romania, however, Hungarian is officially-recognised in those territorial-administrative units where Hungarians make up 20% or more of the population. So, the situation is rather more similar to that of Louisiana or New Mexico, where French and respectively Spanish are the second official languages, and both are listed in the infobox. In Louisiana, there are in fact very few French speakers, but the French name is still there because the language is officially-recognised. Also look at the example of New Zealand, where Maori speakers make up less than 20% of the population, but where cities like Dunedin, Christchurch, Invercargill all have the Maori name in the infobox, because Maori is officially-recognised along with English. So, I hope you can see that this is not about double standards, and it is also not about Magyarisation. That the Hungarian name is listed in the infobox does not make the Romanian name any less visible, and in any case this is simply a reflection of the current situation and the law. Ronline ✉ 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hungarians have the right to use their mother tongue at local level, but this doesn't change the official name of that locality. As for New Zealand, i'll already told you to stop giving examples of officially bilingual states, i.e. a thing that Romania it's not. As for Us states, from what i know they don't have official language, i.e.e again not the case of Romania. And since the law didn't change any official name of a settlement in a double name (Romanian+national minority), the only name present in the infobox should be the one approved by the Parliament (the only one who was the right to decide). This doesn't make the name used by national minority less visible, since in most cases is the second or third word of the article) Anonimu 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hungarian gay Ronline, let me tell you something. If a law says that for some cities is allowed to have billingual signs that doesn't mean that the second language is official. Read the constitution and until there it's writen Hungarian, any Hungarian word will be deleted. So be it! Capisci? --195.78.228.23 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you don't understand the concept of devolution. In Romania, there is more than one tier of government. Local governments have a series of powers, including the use of minority language policy. Officially-recognising Hungarian in Oradea doesn't mean that the language becomes an official language of Romania. It doesn't mean that the Romanian Consitution has to be written in Hungarian. In the Val d'Aran, for example, Aranese is officially-recognised. This does not mean that the Spanish Constitution is written in Aranese or the Spanish Government gives any recognition whatsoever to this language. Another example is that of Wales, where Welsh is official, even though this doesn't mean that the UK government has any obligation to recognise or deal with the language (in practice, they do, but it's not an obligation). So, no, not so be it; languages can be official at any level of government, not just national. Ronline ✉ 08:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (I'm a gay Hungarian, according to you, so a change of signature is pertinent, eh?)

In Romania there's no real devolution. local councils don't have the same power as the assemblies in devoluted states (Italy, Germany, Belgium, some parts of UK). And they don't have the right ot change names of the settlement. The use of a name used by national minority in local documents written in the language of the national minority doesn't make that name official. And to say a city name it's official at local level, but not at national level is pure nonsense. Anonimu 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about those examples if this is not the case? You may push your POV but will not be accepted. Do you know now the difference between official and not official? --211.180.51.14 12:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't read what it says in Constitution. Only official language is Romanian. As for the gays you may fuck who you want. Or you may let be fucked as you want. --211.180.51.14 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ronline. If a version of a city's name is used by over 20% of its population, written in official documents on the city limits plaques and on the official buildings, then it is official enough to be written in its infobox. --Andrei 09:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ronline, do you realise the implication of a formulation Hungarian is officially-recognised in those territorial-administrative units where Hungarians make up 20% or more of the population.? on Oradea talkpage i copypasted the articles of laws dealing with the use of the language of minorities in Romania, and there it is said, the use of the language of an ethnic minority is not used in official documents, only romanian language is used in official documents Criztu 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And what is so wrong with the implication? What is so wrong about official recognition of a language in territorial units (UTAs) where Hungarians make up 20% or more of the population? Are you saying that's not the case. Wel, I propose to you this: the law also states that in those UTAs where a minority makes up more than 30% of the population, council minutes can be recorded in the given language, provided that a version is also kept in Romanian. AFAIK, the municipal councils of Miercurea-Ciuc and Sfântu Gheorghe work predominantly in Hungarian, with translations in Romanian provided, of course, according to the law. I don't really want to get into a minority rights debate here, but why do you see that "implication" as so outlandish? Ronline ✉ 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that non-romanian minorities have to right to read the documents of the local administration in their mother tongue doesn't change the official name of a city. The Parliament is the only authority in Romania that can establish the official name of a city. And there no law stating that Oradea should be named also nagyvarad or any other thing. Any local decision that changes the name of a populated place without a law passed by the Parliament is unconstitutional, and thus illegal. Putting a name that is not ackowledged as official by the Parliament, and thus by the International Community (including UN, US and EU) it's just original research, and it's a threat to wikipedia's (not very high at the moment) credibility. Anonimu 11:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anonimu. Well said. Mr. Gay do you agree with him? --195.78.228.23 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Law number 215 is a law. Passed by the Parliament. It acknowledges ethnic minority languages (that includes toponyms) at local level. As I said, they even put the name in the minority language on official buildings and at city limits. It's official, and it is according to the law.--Andrei 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)\

No. The language is not official. No law acknowledge this. So, Hungarian it's not official in Romania. Basta cohones! --195.78.228.23 14:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not about Hungarian being official "in Romania". I'm really tired of people trying to twist what I have said into "Romania" rather than "a territorial-administrative unit". I've never said that Hungarian is an offically-recognised by Romania (i.e. the central government). If it were, the Romania article would have to list "Hungarian" in the infobox. Rather, minority languages are officially-recognised by the local governments of territorial-adminsitrative units such as municipalities, cities, communes, etc. The reason why I call it "official recognition" is because the local government is obliged to provide a series of services in Hungarian, which I have mentioned before. It thus, quite literally, officially recognises the given language. And the reaction and personal attacks this has provoked leads me to belief that this is less about impartiality and "correcting the evil Hungarians" than it is about Romanian chauvinism and nationalism. Down with the Magyarophobia, down with the homophobia. This is Romania, guys, and in Romania we respect minorities and human rights. Ronline ✉ 08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The law says national minorties have the right to use their mother tongue were they are at least 20%. There's no formulation of any other language being official. These may seem the same for some, but if the law would have wanted to say "official", i see no reason for not saying it. Anonimu 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if you're tired? Go fuck yourself with your gays... HAHAHA This is Romania and you have to obey its laws. Now, it says in Constitution what? So, go fuck yourself with your Hungarian language.--211.180.51.14 12:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC and Bulgaria

I'm ready to write an RfC against a bulgarian user if he's not willing to accept my formulation: Romanians (Vlachs). In that case if it happens, I will ask you for my full support. --Eliade 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1919 Ro-Hu war

Please see , , , Greier 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say is that Romania had not "won the war".

Pai da shi normal, tu tot timpul stii ceva ce altii nu stiu... Noi muritorii ne ghidam dupa bunul simt, care spune ca esti victorios in urma unui razboi atunci cand adversarul tau il pierde. Dar zeul Dahn nu se limiteaza la astfel de interpretari vulgare... El tot timpul stie ceva ce altii nu stiu... 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people on the face of the Earth (including the Entente Powers) have heard of this thing called Treaty of Bucharest, 1918. But don't tell anyone, Greier... Dahn 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

About the rest: I didn't really look into it, because I couldn't handle the old edits with a straight face after I read "neuter zone". Dahn 16:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Din tot ce era acolo, asta era problema... ca am zis "neuter"... vai vai, ce fel de om esti... 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that is just one of the many things that make me need to take breaks before I tackle long edits by you. Btw, for those who think that you plagiarized long texts, let them note what your English usually is, and how ellaborate the one in articles such as Byzantium after Byzantium and the spurious Lex Antiqua Valachorum (or the controversial-at-best Scythian monks). Dahn 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Hungarian army did not in fact invade Romania, as far as I know. Dahn 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

nu, shi normal ca nu... Shi normal ca cealalta versiune e aia buna, aia in care se spune ca Romania a invadat Ungaria... De fapt putea sa spuna orice, tot era mai buna decat versiunea mea, nu? Altfel, cum mai aveai tu ocazia sa arati cat de dăştept esti... 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever that other version was, two wrongs don't make a right. The Ro army did enter Hungary, whatever euphemism you feel like using for it. If you counter a disputable term with an all-out fallacy, your edits are revertible on sight. Dahn 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, yet again

Please see this and read User:Greier's edit summary on the right. Thank you. Dahn 16:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You welcome. 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

^As you may see just above (check the edit history: it's Greier), the author is congratulating himself on having called me "idiot" in the above-quoted summary on my talk page. I believe Greier is familiar with the procedure of getting banned: I want to see if the other side involved in the process of banning has as a good a memory as he does. Dahn 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Transylvania

I find the behaviour of User:Criztu on Talk:Transylvania and Transylvania unacceptable. I would like you all to check with the debate and explain to me how Critzu, who, as the only one opposing me so far, supports some narrow, irrelevant, and fallacious additions to the text (additions - he does not really object to the anything already in the article), can possibly use a tag that accuses me of "not being neutral". This, especially since he cannot point out how I would be partisan and of what, and since in reality his objections in the article do not seem to reflect anything neutral (he wants "a Romanian view" to feature more prominently, and hides behind the fact that "no Romanian editor would object to his version" - as if all Romanians ought to have the same opinion, and pretending not to notice that I too am Romanian!). Dahn 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No true Scotsman... - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From Anittas

Anittas has asked me to post this link: It is now official (fact) that Moldavia is superior. I'm posting it, but I think this sort of thing is silly: it's reminds me of my late great-uncle Dave who used to send the family emails listing Jewish Nobel prize winners and the like. - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles about Romania related articles convention/manual of style

I think a comprehensive convention on articles about things in Romania should be deviced. currently I have a lot of issues with articles about Transylvania. with formulations that i consider revisionist propaganda. eg. "84.6% (276,106) of its population is ethnic Hungarian" followed by "Romanians concentrated in a few specific towns" instead of letting the NPOV demographic infobox inform the reader "Hungarians : 84.6, Romanians: 14.1%. or maybe I am wrong, and things have to be put the way they are put now. so, i would like to device a Template of how an article about an administrative division (then rulers) of Romania should look like, in an NPOV way. I cant edit articles about Romania infinately just because there is no convention on how an article of this sort should look like. While every one of us may have biases and POVs or insuficient experience, having a Template article for articles about Romania would make things more easy to settle. Criztu 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how exactly is the statement that "84.6% (276,106) of its population is ethnic Hungarian" wrong? It's just a way of stating "Hungarians: 84.6%" in prose! There is absolutely no POV element in that sentence at all, particularly since the percentage of Romanians is also listed. Also, why is "Romanians concentrated in a few specific towns" wrong or misleading? It offers more information than just saying "Romanians: 15.4%" because it shows their distribution, and the fact that although Romanians are a minority in the county, they form a majority in a number of localities. The fact is that most localities in the county have a percentage of Hungarians above 84.6%. Since Misplaced Pages is not a statistical database, there is no mathematical convention on this issue. Each articles doesn't have to look exactly the same. But the precedent and convention so far seems to be in favour of maintaining alternative names, and I really don't see what problem you have with the above sentences. Ronline ✉ 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i told u on Bucharest talk page. Propaganda is when u arrange information or present parts of the information in such a way that u manipulate the reader. Why doesnt the Demographics paragraph starts with "only 14.1 of its population is ethnic Romanian" followed by "Romanians live in localities of.." why do they have to be "concentrated in a few localities", what, are they in quarantine or are they colonized there or what ? why should a statistic be presented in a journalistic way ? isnt "Hungarians: 84.3%, Romanians: 14.1%, etc" clear enough ??? what does the starting paragraph in the Demographics trying to underline here ??? if Romania wants, the county could be reorganised in such a way that Hungarians will not be majoritary . What is the goal of having a proposition in the Demographics of Harghita stating how majoritary are the Hungarians, when there is an infobox, and these are statistics ? :| Criztu 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Concentrated in a few localities" just means that instead of being spread evenly around the county, they are "concentrated" (this is used statistically, here) in certain administrative units where they either form a majority or a sizeable minority. It actually analyses the statistics instead of just presenting them as raw. Saying that "Romanians are a majority in Locality XYZ" is raw statistics, while saying that they're "concentrated in a few towns, mainly Topliţa" uses that information to produce a meaningful sentence about demographics in Harghita. That's why that construction is better than just "Hungarians: 84.3%, Romanians: 14.1%, etc". We could fill all of Misplaced Pages with numbers like that, but this is not a statistical almanac or a census report. And once again you're saying that the current construction is propagandistic, but the alternative you offer is just as biased, if not more. Starting with "only 14.1% of its population is ethnic Romanian" implies that "there should be more of them", it implies, if you want, some sort of historical injustice and crisis situation. Considering that Harghita and Covasna are unique in Romania for being the only majority non-Romanian counties in the state, I think that's what the demographics section should focus on. Reading that they're an ethnic majority doesn't manipulate the reader in any way - it just presents to them the nature of the situation. It then even says "and one of only two counties where Hungarians form a majority", so that people won't believe that "Transylvania is majoritarily Hungarian", as you alleged they would believe. Your version manipulates them a lot more. And, once again, I really think you're being overly concerned about this. There are better things to do, IMO, to improve Romania's image on Misplaced Pages if you really want. Ronline ✉ 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

well, the article Hungarian_minority_in_Romania doesnt say "Hungarians are mainly concentrated in a small area in a few counties of Romania" but "most ethnic Hungarians of Romania live in what is today known as Transylvania, where they make up about 20% of the population" so it is emphasised that they make 20% of Transylvania, instead of informing that if u look outside the Szeklers of HarCov, the Hungarians barely make 5% in Transylvania, and there is no concentrated nowhere. the article continues: "Hungarians form a large majority of the population in the counties of Harghita and Covasna" it doesnt say Hungarians are concentrated in the counties of Harghita and Covasna" i could ask for a similar formulation for romanians in Harghita, like "Romanians form a large majority of the population in the cities of Toplitza and others in Harghita" Criztu 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, articles about Romania are in such an error, that the infobox places Harghita in Region Transylvania, when it is in fact placed in Central Region of Romania. It is the Central Region, not Transylvania Region. I think we should all know that Romania is in fact split into Administrative Regions, just like England is split into Administrative Regions, they are not the same as Historical Regions. These are Subdivisions of Romania, not Transylvania Wallachia and Moldavia. victims of propaganda editing articles of Romania, pff ... Criztu 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, I suppose that the development regions could be helpful also. But, the development regions are not administrative. They are simply there for regional development and statistical purposes and for distributing EU funds, and are in this way basically an EU-created institution. The English administrative regions actually have a council and have some legal powers. Ronline ✉ 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would include a Historical region in the infoboxes, i dont know if this would be the convention regarding the infoboxes. Criztu 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, i edited the Counties of Romania as follows:

Lead paragraph

Mehedinţi (IPA: ) is a county (judeţ) of Romania, in the historical province of Oltenia. Its capital city is Turnu Severin.

note: priority 1 is "Mehedinti is a county of Romania". ordering the information as "Mehedinti is a county in the historical region of Oltenia", would give priority to Oltenia, which is journalistic/beletristic style. priority 2 should be given to its capital Turnu Severin, i am not sure yet tho. I would place information about Oltenia in the History section, but since the lead paragraph doesnt contain too much info, the reader wouldnt be overwhelmed by this info in the lead. I put the population of Turnu severin in the Municipalities section, since it is redundant info, it belongs to Turnu Severin article, which is made accessible from the lead, if one needs to know population of capital city of Mehedinti.

Demographics

*Romanians - 00%

*Hungarians - 00%

*Rromas - 00%

*Ukrainians - 00%

*Germans - 00%

*Serbians - 00%

i used official statistics and edrc in ordering minorities. i didnt order them by "a majority of the respective population in a county" but i ordered them as they are ordered in Recensamant 2002. "Romanians, Hungarians, Romas, Ucrainians, Germans." note the order in those oficial links, and note the Development Regions Criztu 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

note: Romania is a Romanian national state, and has a number of Ethnic Minorities. so a reader looking at the demographic paragraphs can identify quickly which country does Mehedinti county belongs to, if say, he didnt notice the information about Romania in the lead. i am not sure how to group the Ethnic minorities so that no one can feel discriminated, but in the same time informing that they are in fact Ethnic minorities of Romania Criztu 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

But does it really matter what their legal status is (i.e. that legally they're "ethnic minorities")? The Demographics section provides information primarily on demographics, not on political recognition and rights. Also, the census, for example, lists all national minorities after Romanians, but they are not placed in a separate category. It just comes up as "Romanians: 80%, Hungarians, 12%; Roma: 3%, etc" in the tables. I think it should stay like that at Misplaced Pages as well. For this reason, I don't see the point of informing the reader that those ethnic groups are "ethnic minorities", since it is obvious that in Romania, ethnic Romanians are in the majority. Also, it is quite obvious that Mehedinţi is a county in Romania, since the article the person is linked from would provide the necessary context for that choice. And the lead and infobox are obvious enough anyway. Ronline ✉ 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

oh, you are right, i will list the demographics in the same style as the Recensamant 2002 lists them, it is a most perfect solution Criztu 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be running through similar arguments (again, with Criztu invoking Britannica rather than our own manual of style) at Talk:Vlad_III_Dracula#Vlad_Dracula. He wants to move the article. I don't think this is all ultimately terribly important, given that we have all the appropriate redirects, but I really don't like the idea that one person, with no significant support from anyone else and some opposition, wants to singlehandedly move articles from their longstanding locations. This seems like a recipe for trouble (what happens when the next person decides to do the same?) and I see no positive value from the point of view of our readers. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

i would like to ask u the link to wikipedia convention/manual of style regarding the title of the articles such as Vlad III Basarab Criztu 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One relevant passage is at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names: "The article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". There's also Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people) and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

well then, 1,080,000 hits for "Vlad the Impaler" and 726,000 hits for "Vlad Dracula". I think there is somewhere a manual of style settling the precedence of a name with objective connotations over a name with defamatory connotations Criztu 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing objective or notable in calling the man "Basarab". That would be POV-pushing, and of no relevance to anyone but you, Critzu. "Defamatory connotations" is a whimsical argument to make - any word that does not comply with a particular POV could be said to be "defamatory", and you have provided no accaptable reason for the "Basarab" thingie to feature instead. Dahn 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not pushing for Basarab, I am talking about Vlad the Impaler instead of Dracula Criztu 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, other contributors are actually doing productive things. Dahn 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian names for Covasna, Harghita and Mureş

Hi. I am currently involved in a debate with User:Criztu over whether Hungarian names for Harghita County, Covasna County and Mureş County should be listed in brackets in the lead paragraph of those articles. I support such a move, as I consider that Harghita and Covasna have a Hungarian majority, and Mureş has a significant Hungarian minority, and thus it's a no-brainer that the Hungarian name be there. What are your thoughts on this? Ronline ✉ 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Significant Hungarian minorities are located also in Satu Mare County , Sălaj County and Bihor County . It could be done for them too.---Andrei 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. - FrancisTyers · 10:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Dahn 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Britannica agrees with Criztu Criztu 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then, case closed? Because Britannica agrees with Criztu? Let's all close down then and leave Britannica as the only encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not meant to be a mirror of Britannica and it does not use Britannica as its model. I think you're just blindly following Britannica and trying to justify its content by saying it's doing the intelligent thing politically. I just think not including the Hungarian names in Britannica is an example of its staleness as an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is much more pluralist, tolerant and generally much more informative, even if it may be a little bit inconsistent as times. Ronline ✉ 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is built from Britannica 1911. so I consider Britannica's style as a guide for Misplaced Pages Criztu 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't built from Brittanica 1911! It was just used as a source for some (read: very restricted number of) articles, just as CIA World Factbook was used as a guide for the country articles. Just because these free-content, public domain texts were used as "fillers" doesn't mean they were used as a style guide or anything. They were just fillers, and something to work from. But most articles don't look anything like 1911 Britannica anymore, and in any case a 1911 text (!) shouldn't be a guide for Misplaced Pages in the first place (as interesting as it is to read, for its archaic quaintness). Ronline ✉ 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am saying since Britannica 1911 text was used as a guide in Misplaced Pages, contemporary Britannica can be used as a guide for Misplaced Pages. i dont use Britannica 1911 as a guide, as u can see from my removal of obsolete formulation such "Wallachia region" and replacing them with "Development Region Central, or South". Britannica 2006 uses a formulation in the sense i use it. Criztu 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ion Iliescu

The part of the Ion Iliescu article about the Mineriad is a bit of a mess. I'm not too knowledgable on the topic, since I had no particular connection to Romania at the time and haven't ever really researched the period. I could start doing some research and sort this out, but I'd rather that someone more knowledgable would step in. In particular, it is unclear what is alleged and what is factual; also the prose is awful. I can probably help with the latter, but I'm usually hesitant to clean up the prose on an otherwise poor passage (it gives it an undeserved veneer of believability). - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance - the forged posts of User:Node_ue

Hello everybody. Following this message I need assistance from a person that could explain me how he forged the message. I have never, ever, sent him something like this. Dpotop 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's trivial to forge it. It's just an image. You can put anything in an image. - Jmabel | Talk 19:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

no no! vrei sa stii cum a facut? e foarte simplu.... I-ti voi descrie in pasi cum sa procedezi (si cum probabil a procedat Node):

1. Deschizi TELNET-u (Start→Run→Telnet) sau orice alt shell
2. Gasesti un server web care are shi mail server (SMTP). In cazul nostru serverul de mail in cauza este mail.yahoo.com (alte exemple: mail.home.ro, gmail.google.com, etc...
3. Te conectezi la mail server cu ajutorul Telnetului, prin comanda nume server nume port. In cazul nostru, va fi mail.yahoo.com 25 (portul 25 este portul standard pentru trimis emailuri POP3, asha cum de exemplu, portul 80 este pentru HTML)
4. cand te conectezi, scrii "helo" (nu hello). aceasta e comanda standard cand te "prezinti" pe un server SMTP
5. scrii mail from: - aici pui ce nume vrei: dpotop1@yahoo.com, pula@yahoo.com, traianbasescu@yahoo.com, etc...
5. scrii rcpt to: - aici pui adresantul: node.ue@gmail.com, jmabel@yahoo.com, etc...
6. scrii data - scrii doar atat si dai enter; asta e o comanda de "umplutura" (dar trebui scrisa)
7. scrii mesajul
8. dai "enter" cand termii mesajul. apoi scrii "." (adica caracterul punct). apoi iar dai "enter", si mesajul a fost trimis...

Daca vrei sa-l torni pe Node, zii sa-ti arate headerul de la email, unde apare IP-ul expeditorului, si roaga un admin sa compare IP-ul din asa zisul mesaj trimis de tine, si IP-il cu care editezi tu wikipedia. Sau verifica IP-ul la ripe.net. Daca nu e un IP al unui internet provider din Romania, e clar ca Node e un parshiv... greier 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Se pare ca acelasi lucru e scris si la articolul SMTP greier 12:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough: you can forge a header easily enough. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, after a long wait during which I have refrained from editing wikipedia, here is the answer from the Yahoo.com customer service (good news, as expected):

Hello,

Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Mail.

We have investigated your report, and, based on the information you've

given us, your account does not appear to have been accessed by the

sender of this email.

The sender seems to have forged your email address in the "reply-to"

and/or the "from" field of the message they sent out. Please know that

we are currently aware of this type of spam and are investigating it.

Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

Regards,

Mike

Yahoo! Customer Care

24402472

So, User:Node_ue posted a forged message. It's official. Dpotop 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem articles

This is an incomplete list of articles where conflicts involving Romanian interests have occured, or which have involved Romanian Wikipedians (add any others):

• Magyarization and Romanianization - you GOT to READ these !
• Moldovan language
• Moldovans
• Demographics of Ukraine Rezolvat/Resolved
• Moldova
• Movement for unification of Romania and the Republic of Moldova
• Anti-Romanian discrimination
• Hertza region Rezolvat/Resolved
• Transnistria Problems continue (I've requested the article to be blocked until the major issues are resolved. --Wojsyl )
• Bukovina
• Romanians
• Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878 vs Romanian War of Independence
• Transylvania, User Erdelyiek is inserting some text suspected of original research ((s)he has been contributing to the article before).
• Putna needs transaltion/cleanup after anon. `'mikka (t) 21:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Rezolvat/Resolved — material was about Putna monastery, I've moved it to the talk page of that article. - FrancisTyers · 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Miklós Horthy

Projects

Advertise or ask for assistance for your Romanian-related Wiki projects

Resources

http://www.biblioteca.ase.ro/ResurseElectronice/carte/download.aspx?id=38

Debate

Debate anything related directly, or indirectly, to Romania - but take it to the discussion Page

Off-topic discussion

Anything goes (on the discussion page)

List of participants

1. Anittas 17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Alexrap 18:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Dunemaire 18:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Dahn 19:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Orioane 19:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Tfine80 20:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Voievod 15:29 (Eastern), 4 December 2005
10. Dpotop 21:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Vlad 22:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Ronline ✉ 00:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
13. AdiJapan 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
14. PET 05:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Winona Gone Shopping 05:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
16. HotelRoom 06:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Dalf | Talk 09:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Mihai Andrei 13:27, 5 December 2005 (CET)
19. Vasile
20. Algos 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Uncke Herb 06:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
22. AdamSmithee 22:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
23. EvilAlex 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Tavilis 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
25. vkxmai 01:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Anclation 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
27. bogdan 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
28. NorbertArthur 8:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
29. mmtux 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Anonimu 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Arcadie 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
32. TSO1D 15:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Just a tag 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Romihaitza 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Hurricane Angel 02:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
36. R.S.ro 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
37. MIsterMan 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Radufan 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
39. Mentatus 18:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Criztu 18:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Regional Wikipedian notice boards