Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 7 May 2010 (→Arbitration enforcement sanction: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5

Useful tools

{{bd-blanked}} follows Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7: by the author and main content creator is very speedy (by my experience, generally within the hour). If there is a sole contributor, s/he doesn't even have to provide a reason. This is one of the most uncontroversial. Dc76\ 01:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To simplify matters (not to rush anything, but to set aside things that were already clarified or those that could wait longer), I would like to modify my proposal to fit better with the minimalistic approach of Dahn. I would appreciate your troubleshooting. Feel free to edit/comment within the proposal itself, e.g. add a cat that you think I missed, or comment after an unnecessary cat. Allow me to request (from everybody) that we allow everyone interested time to think about it. Thank you very much for consideration of my proposal. Dc76\ 12:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think: should I maybe just place Category:Moesia as a subcat? What is exactly Moesia? Was is known by this name before the Romans? Greek colonies is what puzzles me. Dc76\ 14:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the conversation from the sidelines for a bit. This might be a good time to lobby for some improvements in WP. For example, you should be able to mark an article as "Category:Romania" and "Category:1890s" and not have to do "Category:Romania 1890s". What's really needed is a way for someone to enter two categories in a search and come up with the "cross" of the two. Doing "crossings" manually is an unmanageable task, and WP is a database after all. If that's not possible (>1 category lookup) owing to concerns regarding query overhead, then it might be worth investing in a bot to create two-deep category cross-references, for example:

• list of categories, "A"
• list of categories, "B"
• for each one of categories "A" generate/insert in article category "A" + each member of categories "B"

That would take care of the timeline (decades) ones, which appears to be the bulk at this point. You could then focus more on categories relating to eras, cultural and political movements, and all, which should be the primary use of categories. While uncontroversial to the point of being sterile, I'm not sure that "Romania in decade XYZ" has a lot of value other than (hopefully also by bot!) to generate a "timeline of Romania."

   I'm a "computer professional" from the days that one actually had to know something about computers to program them. As it currently stands, it's an enormous manual effort which I think would be better suited to automated tools. VЄСRUМВА 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On the actual question, it probably doesn't make sense for ancient (or nearly) Greek items associated with the territory of today's Romania to be subcats of Romania. Category-wise, I personally think "Romania" should "start" at some point where an ethno-linguistic "critical mass" of identifiably Romanian people are associated with an area of settlement roughly the territory of today's Romania. This view might not be suitably "ancient" enough for some. (Thinking of the howls of displeasure which would result under similar circumstances, for example, editors linking Illyrians and Albanians, who I would expect would take "Category:Albania" back to the Greek colonies.) Just my thoughts. VЄСRUМВА 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)\

Based on what articles are part of the series "History of Romania" it may be necessary to be more inclusive going back in the timeline. (!) WEEKEND WIKIBREAK, REALLY! VЄСRUМВА 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My chance to catch up

All right now, where were we?

Well, if that weren't a borrowed camera and I'd be out in Argeş more often, you bet. It's funny: I've been all around Câmpulung at various intervals, but I've never actually been in Câmpulung. For Piatra(-)Neamţ, I don't know what to tell you, other than that the encyclopedic dictionary too favors no hyphen. I think we should definitely have both variants in the lead, and, incidentally, how about also mentioning that the Neamţ part is just a modern attribute to distinguish it from others, and that the town (like its namesakes) is just Piatra in various references/contexts? (Btw, what's with the lks to disambig in the German version? So many issues, so little time...)

Pleşiţă - covered, Maya - hand me the blowtorch, Deejay - I'm really leaning toward hand me the blowtorch on this one as well, and hey, the creator is no longer here to oppose :). Not a good criterion in itself, obviously, but since Deejay has a very slim claim to notability, the one major problem is sorted. I remember I actually stated that the article may be below GNG as I commented on the DYK hook, but damn their musician guidelines and whatever they may also say. The documentary films - they look like they're non notable, all of them, but I admit I didn't scour the net for more; it's something else I would have to be more familiar with. Some of the other articles got changed, some no longer exist. The Armenians articles: it would require a frontal, holistic approach to the matter, but you are obviously right about such stuff being intolerable. Not to mention unreadable.

On the Orthodox Church, let me meet you halfway: there is much to admire about the Church today. Since Daniel rose to the position, it's finally integrating Romanian society instead of working from above and beyond it, and it's getting rid of at least some of the moral and political ambiguities made famous under Teoctist. Sure, this could be attributed more than anything to the new "business-friendly" attitude, but whatever works.

And, yes, there's a lot to be revered in the pre-20th century past, but not all of it is attributable to the institution - it was more of a question of what they didn't remove from their discourse than one of what they endorsed. The since-forgotten and entirely respectable (even thrilling) image of the 16th-18th century monks and theologians who were highly aware of the wider world, who sought to make a selection from all subtle ideas about God and religion, coming to them from Protestantism, from the Jesuits, from heterodox Islam and even from Freemasonry, is something that no intelligent person should dismiss. But the signs were around even then: there is this eternal ambiguity about collective salvation in Orthodoxy, which even then prompted the Church authorities to fall for the notion that God will only save "his" people (which formed the basis for the "God will save his nation" discourse that degenerated into...). And, as an institution of sorts, the Church not only tolerated slavery, but turned itself into the largest slave owner, and even gave ideological endorsement to the notion that those whom it enslaved were neither Christians nor people. I am not as obtuse as not to place that in context, or to believe that their attitude was fanaticism (when it was in fact intellectual indolence), but it stains the overall image as far back as that time.

And the record on the Jews: you're right, it was not that bad. And even later the Church's attitude was not as bad as that of its most devout congregations - here too, I suppose, there was an issue of ambiguity more than complicity (and the real problem is that, in even later decades, the Church persisted in that ambiguity beyond all the limits of decency). But, getting back to the pre-1900 era, yes and no. They had a better record to the measure where Romanian society had a better record - the Church was more likely permeated by antisemitic discourse as society was, with the differences I alluded to (the distance taken from direct instigation, the occasional moral authority intervening to condemn violence, the essential plurality of voices within the institution). If their more modern record is, in my opinion, worse than that of the Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations, it's because the others were less likely to fall for Leviathan's courtship. Mutatis mutandis. (And, of course, figures such as Sandu Tudor and, with all his stranger aspects, Steinhardt, are the solar narrative here, and they do a good job of moving Orthodox history beyond Crainic and the boys in green. And the picture is completed by Galaction and, why not, Iustinian, whose choices were opposed to in theory but ultimately not that different from your average Guardist.)

About the Gardianul article, I'd avoid citing it - though I must say it's a weird-ass case. A funny thing of the same nature almost happened to me right around the time you were posting that: I had been wanting to see about improving Andrei Oişteanu and see about better sourcing of the info added there by... well, probably by Mr. Oişteanu himself (nothing bad about the info, just very hard to retrieve). I had purchased an issue of Dilemateca and stumbled on an interview with him (a very interesting one, I might add). What they do on Dilemateca is to include this short resume on the subject of the article, and this one mentioned all the poorly cited data. So I thought: "yay, source". But (you guessed it) it ended with the line preluat de la wikipedia.org... (Which also reminds me of that Ion Vianu article, which I did cite and approached as you advised me to, only as part of the entire book were it was republished, and not yet in that article. Yes, I actually bought it.)

I'm not entirely sure about how Timofte should be categorized. Your solution is as good as any, but the ambiguity is there. He would probably be under "police generals" or something, except the terminology is flawed and the posts no longer exist (I don't remember: was it still militarized in 2001? if no, then perhaps he is a Gendarmes general?).

As for Târgu Mureş and Prime Minister - too much inanity for me to enjoy dealing with them right away. The latter case especially so, since the guy is likely not to get the rules and guidelines - one such case just ended dramatically, let me enjoy the quiet before I jump in again :). Dahn (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I just had a mighty idea. You remember when I mentioned Gallica as a resource? We still haven't uploaded from these (the main reason being that I got a bit tired by all the incompetence and chaos on commons), but some just scream pick me, pick me! But that's not it: if we use crops of the old and, very, very detailed maps out there, we've got ourselves free illustrations for every locality in Romania (and Moldova?). I tried my hand at this with Piteşti, tell me if you like the results. Btw, the Cantacuzino map should be great for historical images on all Wallachian counties too - note the borders. Oh, one more thing: if you like the concept and opt for it, consider uploading the images with vector extensions - jpeg tends to blur them. Dahn (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Weeeeell, it's high time I descended from the ivory tower. I'm only up there because I'm cooking something big - still not the "big thing" I mentioned before, just something in a constellation, but getting there too. It's also why I left the category fixes project hanging.

I'm sorry for not responding on the Fenechiu issue in time - I knew there was no way I could look into it right then, and in any case those two are great little articles. And bringing the deals out into the open has its poetic justice perks, as a certain Mr. Chireac found out just last week... kudos on that too - let the people know something beyond the tiresome "TB is a populist, yellow-blue is Euro-friendly, noi vrem respect" BS that's got its foot in the door here. (Btw, did you happen to notice how they just today resurrected Gaetan, the "vitriolic indictment" man, to deter attention from the guys who want to get a hold of Berceanu's testicles? And, speaking of Berceanu's testicles, time it made it into the article on him?)

Just blowing off some steam, for now at least. Let's just say they won't need an autocar to get me to the voting section... I'll be first in line.

1. Let me start with the thread you mention last in that section: I never let myself forget it, as it is one of the most beautiful samples of Dunning–Kruger's (before you ask, I didn't know anything about this effect - but got to it through this lovely essay). It's also where that one guy began with his demagoguery aimed my way (and, in that case, your way). And the other participants... thank God we nemernici aren't all as articulate and intelligent as those guys are. For the cities: I agree with the ranking, but I guess we'll have to wait until some users with the necessary attention span and intelligence start focusing on them one by one. Leaving out Piteşti (noblesse oblige) and Satu Mare (Dr. Jekyll1987 worked there before Mr. Hyde1987 took over), this is exactly what happened on the other ones. The sad part is that other such articles used to look decent, and then got mowed down (I could nominate Sibiu as a prime example). And here's what I find astonishing (did we discuss this before?): there's this guy from Constanţa, who has acquired a good understanding of wikipedia rules the hard way (but still), who writes decently, who manifestly enjoys writing, and who leave the Constanţa article crumble into dust before touching it. Feel free to disagree with me, but that guy is by now not on the bad side of WP:COMPETENCE, at the very least.

2. Hm. Alas, Animal X is notable. Ridiculous, but notable. The category is probably overkill. The other ones: I know I've heard of one or two of them, but do they really pass the notability check? And, if we take the spam out, what's left? Would you edit the articles with all the tiresome bio stuffola so as to let others assess the notability? I wouldn't, not for those guys... So I'd rather suggest AfDing them, and let them be created again by someone not in a conflict of interests (I assume that's how they were created in the first place) or, heck, even by someone who is in a conflict of interests but understands the basics of how wikipedia works.

3. I don't usually lol, but here it is: LOL. This is Caracudi style journalism, and, considering that Cezarika is at the other end of it, the emperor is beyond naked. As they say: să se ia de gât. On the other hand, while alarming, it's probably not dangerous, as long as the journalists themselves keep it under control. On some level, they validate it by publishing it, and take responsibility for it, so it does become "theirs". Plus: them publishing info sourced from Cezarika's pockets may be idiotic, but it's not the least of problems the press has - I'd rather have them citing wikipedia than claiming credibility with wave after wave of calumny and purposeful misinformation ("TB and Hayssam in cahoots" etc). Which they still do, and which we quote, and which we'll have to always balance out - because every day is a new scandal in this country, and because editorial control is a fiction in so many Romanian newspapers. Well, there is control, but it's not editorial...

4. We are in agreement. However, a long time ago I was reading this book (I completely forgot its title), part of which was about how respected Orthodox theologians in Moldavia and Wallachia constantly gave credit to the fallacy (and heresy, I do believe) of impersonal salvation/collective responsibility. The author, if I recall correctly, was theorizing that, even though the practice was toned down by the 1800s, it remained an essential aspect of how the multitudes and the more silent of clergymen relate to the world. Get that in the mix with the ambiguous attitudes toward the state, and the risk of a serious crisis is there. Plus, it's on our walls :).

5. As above. And again: congrats. Dahn (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we last talked, I managed to ruin and restore back to health my poor computer, with the added bonus that I seem to have lost most of what I was working on for wiki... I really have to start saving my drafts into the sandboxes. There is a slim chance that I didn't, hoping against hope.

So I have to catch up and sob over this, but for now it's celebration time. Dahn (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Biruitorul, wouldn't this be an interesting oportunity to get involved considering your interest in Romania's involvement in WWI? There are many things uncovered by the english wiki regarding this at the moment. I know that finding reliable sources about this issue is very difficult, but at this contest you get as well points for simply creating an article (even stubs). We are starting the contest this evening (after a postponement of 20-hours due to a lack of participants) and feel free to join it if interested! Your participation would be much appreciated! Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Relu Fenechiu

On November 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Relu Fenechiu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 11:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tudor Chiuariu

On November 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tudor Chiuariu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 11:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sensul iubirii

HI. We have no articles about Romanian poetry. Can you expand this? Himalayan 16:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

If you must persist on creating unreferenced one liners without sources or infoboxes please can you at least take a minute or two to list the communes under the district article or/and create a nav template to connect them together. Otherwise without being connected its basically ensuring that they will remain sub stubs for eternity. Dr. Blofeld 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK that's cool but I really do hope there is population or some data available for these communes... I am still waiting for Kotniski also to attend to the Romanian communes. If he doesn't I'll make another manual on them. Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Sami Abugoush

The author Diamondexpert (talk · contribs) re-created this article as just a {{hangon}} tag; I deleted it G4 and he immediately re-created it. So I have create-protected it for a day, and pointed him to you and to DRV. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies, I misread the AfD and thought you were the closing admin. Ignore the above, except for information. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please show a sound reason or revert them.

Hi Biruitorul,

You seem to move three articles and changed the titles of two templates all of which are created by me. OK, I know the rules, all users can edit. But of course, there must be a reason or else (if possible) a mutual understanding to move or to change. (After all, there was no error in the encyclopaedic stuff.) For example, just a few days ago, I saw a flaw in the name of one article and I sent messages to the three editors of the article to warn them. In your case however, you have made all the moves in just several minutes without giving any reason and trying to reach me. (Certainly the exclamations Stop conflacting ! and Not the same thing ! are not the reasons). This isn’t exactly what I’d call politeness.

Now for the changes, you may be right in changing the name of battles to battles involving in one article. But what reasons do you have for the other four. In one article and two templates, you have changed the name Ottoman (Turkish) to Ottoman. What is wrong in showing the old and new names together ? And for the last, you have changed the name Treaty of İstanbul to Treaty of Constantinople. Of course, the name involving Constantinople can be linked to the name involving İstanbul. But you have completely moved it. For what reason ?

I’d be glad if you consider to revert some of your changes. Have a good day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Marseilles

In a similar vein, you recently (and needlessly) changed the spelling of Marseilles to Marseille. In English (and this is an English-language Misplaced Pages) both spellings are acceptable, and, in fact, in American English, which I use, Marseilles seems to be more widely used. This seems like an extraordinary waste of time for someone who is a good editor. Why not tackle some of the really glaring things that need your help, and leave the spellings variations alone?? Especially when both spellings are acceptable? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re : Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
• User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Misplaced Pages from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
• User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
• The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:

• User:Biruitorul, User:Dc76, User:Martintg, User:Miacek, User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek

• User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
• User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
• The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Misplaced Pages, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
• All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Misplaced Pages itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this

Merry Christmas to you too! :) Let me guess, those "anglo-american leftist" and that other "mafia" again? Vezi la ce te aduce ura faţă de aproape? Dacă nu umblai să mă elimini acum erai bine mersi... şi acum chiar nu sunt eu de vină, după cum ai observat m-am ţinut departe de proceduri. Şi ca să-ţi întorc favorul de acum 2 ani: Ion: Erou!, Corneliu: Erou! Mircea şi Dan: Eroi! Trăiască Frontul! ;).Anonimu (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Anonimu if you don't keep your mouth shut you might find yourself in a difficult situation as well. This type of irony is unnacceptable and could be considered harassment especially when someone is under sanctions and might be demoralized. All in all, Biru was a good editor and your dissagreements with him were caused by opinion differences. Just because Biru won't be around in the near future does not mean that you'll roll over everything around here. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was invited here, so I'm not harassing nobody. It was a tongue-in-cheek reply to a tongue-in-cheek comment (and may make no sense to an outsider). It's not my intention to "roll over" anything Biruitorul has done, this case made me realise that vengeance doesn't bring anything good.Anonimu (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well, just wanted to warn you so that you'll remain with your feet on the ground. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Radu of Romania article

I see that you reverted my changes to the article in which I removed references to him as a Prince. These references were also absent from the article throughout the summer untill the 6th of December of this year. I simply reverted to the old situation and did so before I requested the move that you oppose. My only agenda in this is the consistency and credibility of this encyclopedia when it comes to the use of royal titles. My opinion is that the title claimed by Radu is usurped. If the move I requested fails, I believe the article should clearly reflect that the title used is not recognised and what the official name of the gentleman involved is. I will refrain from reverting or changing for the coming period however. However after this is done the article should be adapted one way or the other imho. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

'People From...'

Hi Biruitorul - I see you're cleaning up the 'People From...' categories. What is the currently accepted practice for assigning such a category? Just the birthplace? Just the place they are commonly associated with? And are your conventions widely accepted among Wiki editors or is there controversy? I don't have an agenda here, I'm just asking because I've struggled with how to do this myself. Thanks! Cbaer (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend. I am also sorry how the ArbCom case ended for you. I hope 2010 will be good for you, though, and I wish you will stay with us in next year. - Darwinek (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Argh...

What did they do to you? ONE YEAR?! I have no idea what you wrote in that mailing list, but that seems so excessive it's simply tragic (and yet one more reason to regret having let Anonimu slide with that forum he and his friends were posting on back in the day...) Hope you're okay, and I'm sure that, if they were persuaded to give Anonimu a chance at a comeback (which he is close to usurping, if I'm to be the judge of it), they can surely decrease that absurd topic ban. Until then, I hope you can console yourself by providing this wikiverse with more Boganda-like articles - the Midas touch moves away from Eastern Europe "broadly defined" (grumble-grumble) to Africa. Whatever happens, I shall be awaiting your return with the ardent faith of a Messianist.

I can only hope this decision does not spoil your holidays. Since the cards are already in circulation, and since the next days may turn out to be busy for either one of us, and since I'm neither here nor there at the moment, allow me to jump ahead with a Merry Christmas. Dahn (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, that forum was public, needed registration (which was open) only for posting new messages, and was nowhere as EEML when it comes to the level of influence on WP (Anittas' rants included). You don't even have to read it, just look through the evidence page. I'm disappointed you cant get over disagreements about the ephemeral political situation.

To B., hope you'll resist temptations to sock (after all, it won't be a full year, at least in your case), and take this opportunity to find new interesting facts about the developing word... true marvels are there waiting to be discovered and made into top WP articles by experienced editors.Anonimu (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely because I can get over such disagreements that I be posting this here, just like, you may recall, I objected to your block. The reason why I say you're abusing your "parole" has nothing to do with such disagreements, but with what you make of them (that is, your regrettable inability to maintain a standard of civility). And finally: it would be pretty late to debunk your theory about how forums are different by subjecting them to admin scrutiny; as I have said, it was a poor choice not to have done so the moment it caught my eye. Water under the bridge, just please accept my frustration - not because I would want you out, but because we would all be dealing with a different juridical reality. And who knows, perhaps nipping that little club in the bud would have made Biruitorul reconsider joining the cabal...

By the time Biruitorul's topic ban is lifted, I expect the following, the one thing I have been expecting for years now: that he and you and I and whoever else is concerned all accept our differences. If you allow yourself to warn Biruitorul about "sockpuppets", then allow me to state the following: if you for a moment imagine this inaugurates a carte blanche for your special bias, think again. Dahn (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Who knows what would have happened if our disagreement took place before the block offer.... now really, B. archived it, do you want to start again discussing who and how was being uncivil in that specific discussion? They were fundamentally different, and also your timing would have been bad... that forum was active at a time when Bonaparte didn't need a sock to edit, when Romanian history articles where ruled by Dacodava, a time when B. congratulated(!) me for some opinions we both held at the time... things were different back then, and probably if it weren't for Piotrus-1,-2,-3, B. would have no problem now. As I've already said, my only involvement in this arbcom was being a victim, and I haven't write one word on the arbitration pages. Hope this topic ban of B. won't radicalise you (you mentioned a similar thought process in relation to Base's suspension), and you will continue to keep a clear head and you won't slip into unconditional support...

Some differences are harder to accept than others... but probably by now all such differences aren't that relevant for mainspace in our case (or at least I hope so). I rest assured that you'll always be there to censor any failing in my mainspace editing. BTW, no "special bias" from your part, I expect.Anonimu (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Da capo. Happiest New Year, Biru! (I'm counting the days.) Dahn (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I had seen some of that, and I'm still boiling over it at the moment. I want to take this straight to ANI, because it's really disruptive, but I'll reflect about it a bit more early tomorrow and will give him my two cents one way or the other... Dahn (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm probably not welcome here, but I thought I should inform you that the ArbCom has was willing to grant ban exceptions for working on unreferenced BLPs to Radeksz and Martintg; see announcement. You can almost certainly obtain the same, if you're interested. There's a list of such BLPs at WT:ROMANIA. If you make the request, I'll back you up, saying that there are few editors working on those, which is quite true. Regards, Pcap ping 12:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, I was quite dismayed by your baseless and over-the-top charges here. However, it being just after Forgiveness Sunday, I have moved on. I certainly hope the two-line bios of kids who kick around footballs for a living (eg Bruno Costa) get deleted with extreme prejudice. Some of the others are worth saving, so I may take you up on your offer. Best, Biruitorul 06:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Philli-Ro rhetoric wasn't meant as an attack on you. Sorry if you see it that way. LibStar came up with "argumentum ad Birutorum", saying that no sources exist because you would have found them during the previous AfD. His argument was clearly specious because sources had already been presented in the new AfD (by Mandsford and by mr) before LibStar wrote that statement. So, it was just WP:BLUDGEON banter from LibStar to which I replied in the same vein with "argumentum ad banned user" -- the ultimate wikitrump card (just look what happened with User:Haiduc's creations). LibStar didn't deserve any better answer there, although I did indulge him and listed additional sources. Anyway, the topic is rather uninteresting to me, but if someone wants to write about it, I don't see why not since sources exist. The table in Foreign relations of Romania is rather unwieldy for listing heads of state the visits, treaties, economic relations, etc. Pcap ping 00:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

I have made a request for clarification about whether Mass killings under Communist regimes and similar articles are included under the EEML topic ban. If you would like to reply, my query is posted at . The Four Deuces (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Biruitorul! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 7 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Michael J. Williams (politician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Gavril Dejeu - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Presidents of the Gabonese Senate

Category:Presidents of the Gabonese Senate, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory 07:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Zoltan Mesko (American football) GA

This user helped promote Zoltan Mesko (American football) to good article status.

Thanks for your involvement in the development of Zoltan Mesko (American football) which has become a WP:GA in recent months.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Presidents of the Burundian Senate

Category:Presidents of the Burundian Senate, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory 07:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Presidents of the Mauritanian Senate

Category:Presidents of the Mauritanian Senate, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory 09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Varujan Vosganian

I don't care about the citizenship, his ethnic race is Armenian which makes him all of that. What about those Jews. Their citizenship isn't Jewishness or Israeli, they could be American or Russian or others, but their ethnic race is Jewish which makes them a Jewish whatever they are.

AfD nomination of Apoldu de Jos

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Apoldu de Jos. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apoldu de Jos. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

SD women's org in Romania

Hi. I created the stub Working Women's Union. Do know know what happened to this organisation after the merger of PMR? Which was the 'official' women's org in Romania during the socialist period? --Soman (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ashwant Dwivedi

You nominated Ashwant Dwivedi for AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashwant Dwivedi. I ran Reflinks on the article, which added details on several articles from reliable sources that already appeared in the article. I'm still not sure that the person is notable, but I wanted to let you know that the article is a bit better, and to encourage you to use User:Dispenser/Reflinks when you encounter an article with raw references that looks as if it would be worth keeping. – Eastmain (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case amendment request

radek (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia–Kosovo relations

This article has been renominated for deletion by User:Libstar. Since you took the time to comment in the first discussion, you deserve to be notified of the situation. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

VANU

Hello, i am asking you for help in case of possible vandalism in the VANU article. Because you are Experienced & Established Editor i would like to invite you to resolve the problem at hand. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/Vojvodinian_Academy_of_Science_and_Artiadrian (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Putin off the topic o intrebare, ce faci daca de exemplu articol despre Pamant (planeta) si acuma eu vin cu 1 sursa care zice ca Pamantul ii patrat si normal pentru ca am referinta asa ceva pun si in articol, si tu ai 6 referinte care zic ca pamantul este rotund. Ce sa intampla atunci? Ca nu putem scrie ca Pamantul ii si rotund si patrat dupa unele surse, ii doar una sau alta. Sa spunem ca toate referintele prezentate sunt OK. Cum sa procedeaza in cazuri din astea ? Mersi iadrian (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mersi pentru raspuns si explicatie. Da, mailul este activ. Dar in cazul care chiar nu pate fii ambele? Si numarul de surse nu conteaza ? De exemlu chiar la Vanu pagina, mai precis, Novi Sad ii capitala lui Voivodina nu centrul administrativ sau nu stiu ce, si asta zice la apsolut tot unde dai peste Novi Sad pe wikipedia, la universitati din Novi Sad, la pagina orasului, la pagina Voivodinei, si eu am cel putin 7 surse oficiale care confirm asta si altcineva are 1 sursa care ii tot oficiala doar ca nui updated dupa constitutia noua si sa tine cu aia , disconsidera toate sursele mele si faptul ca unde dai peste Novi Sad scrie ca ii capitala, sau pe wiki sau pe google, orunde zice la fel. Cand ai timp daca poti sa te bagi sa clarifici problema respectiva pe articol pentru ca eu nu mai stiu ce sa fac. Culmea ii ca am multe surse oficiale, peste tot confirma doar 1 sursa zice altfel si acuma nui asa. In cazul asta nu poate fi si Capitala si centrul administrativ, ii una sau alta pentru ca ii forba despre politica unde exista clar legile si informatile, nui stinta unde exista mai multe teorii. Mersi inca o data pentru raspuns. iadrian (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Louis Jacques Senghor

Please reformulate the paragraph if you think it's not a neutral point of view, but you can't deny the facts and deny the source. --JackAttackFR (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC) You did nice editing--JackAttackFR (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Westgate, Canterbury

In answer to your query, the remaining navbox links to the title of the article in that the Westgate is a fortification, and "city gate" is linked within the navbox to a page about fortified city gates on which there is a link back to Westgate, Canterbury.--Storye book (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Roşia Montană

As a speaker of Romanian, would you be able to give me your opinion of this edit? Yilloslime _C 04:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, my friend. How goes things? I was entirely, but entirely emerged in the real world for a couple of weeks, but I'm now returning to the scene of the crime. And, hey, thanks, you know why ;). I want to kick-start our conversations in this unfortunate interval (I'm still counting each day), and hoping that, despite the elephant in the room that is that unfortunate topic ban, you'll still find a purpose for them. After all, it usually takes us (well, me) a couple of months to start work on any project that we discuss, so we could both pretend this is just that relaxed time of year.

Incidentally, and just to make sure, am I right to assume that there's nothing in the ban stopping you from sandboxing and/or intervening into my sandbox, I mean regardless of topic? No 'by the way...' and no pressure here, just an invitation you're free to reject. This may be a good time for us to sketch out one of those "really big" articles we keep tempting each other with. Carol II, oil industry, Iron Guard... oh, the possibilities. Dahn (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I would like to ask you a little question, as you have much more experience at editing EN.WP than me. Do you think it would be appropriate to redirect RAFO to RAFO Oneşti? or even to move RAFO Oneşti over RAFO? Thanks Ark25 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion, please...

... on this article's suitability for DYK?? another editor has improved it greatly and now expressed interest in nominating it for DYK. Any advice? István (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

and BTW, Thank you for your help in improving Hungarian Revolution of 1956 during its recent FAR You have earned this 1956 Hungarian Revolution Barnstar István (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Iadrian yu in a language other than English. When on the English-language Misplaced Pages, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Pokerice

Hello Biruitorul, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Pokerice, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. GedUK  19:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry Herbert, 7th Earl of Carnarvon

Good. Thanks for your help. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Carthage cathedrale.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Carthage cathedrale.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello there!

Unfortunately, I'm terribly late with the wishes, but I do hope you had a pleasant and serene Easter. For various reasons, I was mostly off-wiki these last days, and couldn't reply in time - but I do thank you, and I'm still counting the days till you'd be back for good, in full swing. Make sure you keep in touch even before that moment: it's getting depressingly lonely on our side of the wiki... Dahn (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is everything alright? I haven't heard from you in a while, and I frankly miss being kept in touch with the things you tend to follow. Could it be that this place is now pwned, and all we get is the renaming of Pakistani provinces? :) Write to me, if there's anything you feel like sharing. I keep myself busy, but it's so not the same... Dahn (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ceausescu execution video

Excuse me, I'm asking this question to a couple of people because it's urgent. Is the footage made on Nicolae Ceausescu's trial and execution in public domain or is it copyrighted? Thanks. --Vitilsky (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hanna Instruments

Hello, has there been a previous deletion discussion of Hanna Instruments? --BelovedFreak 20:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've removed the speedy deletion tags from Hanna Instruments because I don't think any of them applied. I can't find a previous deletion discussion - apologies if I have missed one somewhere - and although there's clearly a conflict of interest, it doesn't read as unambiguously promotional. If you think it should be deleted still, I think PROD or AFD is the way to go. Regards, --BelovedFreak 21:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that link. I see it was previously speedily deleted as a test page. WP:CSD#G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) only applies if it was previously deleted as a result of a discussion (AFD). If it's only been deleted under CSD or PROD before, then it can't be speedied under G4. --BelovedFreak 09:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Members of the Polish Sejm

Category:Members of the Polish Sejm, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon 22:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Napoca

Am vazut ca ai schimbat inapoi pe pagina Clujului, cum ca Napoca ar fi denumirea latina si nu cea daca. Explica-mi si mie de unde si pana unde? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codrinb (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

--

Multumesc pentru raspuns dar sunt mult inconsistente in argumente cat si in(tre) articole.

Din articolul in limba engleza despre Cluj-Napoca (cel de care vorbim): Possible etymologies for Napoca or Napuca include the name of some Dacian tribes like the Naparis or Napaei, the Greek term napos (νάπος), meaning "timbered valley" or the Indo-European root *snā-p- (Pokorny 971-2), "to flow, to swim, damp". Independent of these hypotheses, scholars agree that the name of the settlement predates the Roman conquest (AD 106).

Din articolul in limba romana despre Cluj-Napoca (care nu e consistent cu cel in engleza) Prima atestare documentară a unei aşezări pe teritoriul de astăzi al Clujului a fost făcută de geograful grec Claudius Ptolemeu, care a menţionat aici una dintre cele mai însemnate localităţi din Dacia, cu numele Napuca.

Apoi, oricat de sovin ar suna, nu mi se pare normal sa folosim ca referinte la istoria antica a Clujului un articol scris de unguri. Nu poate fi decat subiectiv, partinitor si irelevant pentru ca nu erau aici, si n-ar avea de unde sa stie cum ii spuneau dacii. E nevoie de o sursa istorica a vremii respective, care nu e partinitoare. Iar Geografia scrisa de Claudius Ptolemeu (Geographia_(Ptolemy)) mi se pare cea mai buna sursa.

Cat despre limba daca si numele oraselor (care erau destule si nu le-au denumit romanii), se stie suficient. Vezi Dacian, List_of_Dacian_cities

Codrinb (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

--

Apreciez schimbarea inapoi. Tot ce e important in articole de genul asta, si in wikipedia in general, e adevarul istoric, informatia pura si corecta, atat cat exista. Iar istoria e doar una, chiar daca nu o stim cu exactitate. Din pacate, nu stim inca suficient despre daci, dar e pacat sa neglijam, minimalizam, sau igoram putinul care-l avem: cateva cuvinte, nume de orase, nume de regi si zei. Doar pentru ca nu era asa de avansati ca si grecii si nu prea sunt scrieri, nu inseamna ca nu au existat sau ca nu sunt stramosii nostri. N-as amesteca comunismul, nationalismul cu originea cuvantului Napoca. Nu a inventat-o Ceausescu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codrinb (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Urluiu

Hello Biruitorul, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Urluiu, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:ThiagoRuiz. This has been done because the page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:ThiagoRuiz. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of ThiagoRuiz (talk · contribs) 06:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:North-West Frontier Province

You may be interested to know that a user is refusing to consider your earlier comment at Talk:North-West Frontier Province as still valid because you have not commented there in the last few days: you may wish to comment to clarify your current position. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Vin americanii!

Please comment on the objections that I brought to Vin americanii!, on its talk page.

Breaches of topic ban

Your breaching of your topic ban has now been reported at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Biruitorul. --Russavia 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your input on this as soon as possible would be greatly appreciated.--Tznkai (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of countries by statehood

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of countries by statehood , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanction

Biruitorul, this is to inform you that your one year topic ban from Eastern Europe is reset to begin anew now and that any exceptions no longer apply, as explained in more detail here.  Sandstein  19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)