User talk:Biruitorul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive1

Contents

[edit] Just One Question

I am new to editing wikipedia and was wondering why you deleted my addition to the john Mark Karr page. Please get in contact to explain. I was just hoping to understand how to be more careful in the future. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrik1888 (talkcontribs) 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Third opinion

As most of the discussion seems to have occurred on your and CRCulver's talk page, I thought I'd reply there. I'll post a copy of this to him as well.

While it's quite interesting that the prayer has been translated into this many languages, I think a simple note of that fact (the Jesus Prayer has been translated into over X languages...) would probably be more appropriate then a large list of full-text translations. Of course, these translations being available, you may wish to ask if some of the other language Wikis would be interested-if they're trying to write an article on this or translate this one it would probably be quite helpful to them! However, I do agree that such a list is probably a bit too long and cumbersome to belong in the article proper. Seraphimblade 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with Seraphimblade. I've re-added the list. If it is removed, please contact me on my talkpage - User talk:KazakhPol. Regards, KazakhPol 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article

Hey Biruitorul, I finially decided to create the Istro-Romanians article today (mostly split-off from Istro-Romanian language). If you would like to contribute, that would be great. Thanks, Khoikhoi 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again. I'll try to do some research. Khoikhoi 23:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Accession 2005

Apparently, we have some misunderstanding here. The Bulgarian article says that the members of the 331-seat Senate (not the 331 members of the Senate) ratified it and notes that the Communists abstained. It doesn't discuss the number and the absent senators. I searched using Google for "Франция ратифицира", but none of the news articles I could find discusses the exact number, so tbe Romanian article sounds more reliable. TodorBozhinov 12:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back on track

Sorry for the delay. As it is those articles appear to have been created with a purpose in mind, and I'm not sure I agree with their relevancy to an encyclopaedia (their tone appears to be reserved - with or without Mikkalai's edits: perhaps one could reference the more subjective claims). I have tried to look into them, but did not have the time; and then, I noticed articles such as this one, and decided to give up altogether :). Perhaps at another time (you're doing a great job keeping them neat, btw).

On other topics: I cannot seem to find much on the 1907 rebellion, or, rather, I cannot find something that would bridge the gap between the sides, just various people who support some allegation or another. That is to say, we may get to expand on the legacy way more than on the actual events... Hopefully, something will come along. I know I also owe you research on topics such as the anti-communist resistance, but I was not able to look through Memoria (btw, we could use the online versions of their newer issues, although they appear to have since become ridiculously diversified and vague). Dahn 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

[1] Good point! Cheers. :-) Mcginnly | Natter 09:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norhtern Maramures

Hi, Sorry that I answer late. Thank you very much for your work in the article. Your observations are logical and I agree that we should decide on how to deal with this. I will try to summarize how I see one possible solution (of course I am open to any suggestions and modifications, that's exactly why I am telling you):

  • merge Carpathian Ruthenia and Carpatho-Ukraine. They deal with the same thing: the area inhabitted by Rusins/Ukrainians/Boiko/Lemko/Hutsul on the inner slopes of the Carpathians. I see this article as containing (among other things) everything about their history up to 1945, as well as explanations of what Rusins/Ukrainians/Boiko/Lemko/Hutsul are. I don't see the reason for the existance of a separe article Carpatho-Ukraine, because that formation existed only 1 day (15-16 March 1939), and its article is in fact practically a copy of Carpathian Ruthenia. Of course, if someone writes a specific article about 15-16 March 1939, that would make sense. But noone hinders one to do this in the future. A separate article is desearved by the Subcarpathian Rus, the name of the autonomuous region of Czechoslovakia in 1920-1939, but again, someone would have to write a specific article about 1920-1939 politics/economy/events/population etc - that subject is covered very superficially so far on wikipedia, and again one can start such an article in the future. We can leave a note in the "See also" section of the merged article: "If you have additional info, and want to create separate articles about the political entities of 1920-1939, 15-16 March 1939, please do, but when talking about info prior to 1920, link to this article (Carpathian Ruthenia) in order to avoid content forking.".
  • Zakarpattia Oblast is a legitimate article that deals with the political entity: region of Ukrainian SSR, and later of Ukraine, so it should cover everything after 1945, and geography/economy/politics/etc, but not go too far into history, rather link to Carpathian Ruthenia for that.
  • My impression is that the article Zakarpattia Oblast would in time become bigger, so subthemes would be derived from it. I see the article Northern Maramureş as one such theme. (Other such themes could be the Boiko region, the region inhabitted by Hungarians, themes about ecology and Carpathian mountains, themes for differnt cities, and obviously links to the pages of the historic counties Ung, Bereg and Ugocsa (the other 3)). When talking about history, Northern Maramureş will not focuss only on Ruthenians (ethnic group), but on Maramureş (geographical region). In fact, you can talk about Ukrainians in Maramures only from 16th centruy on, unlike the rest of Zakarpattia Oblast, so we are forced to talk about the region, not about an ethnic group. When talking about geography, population, economy, Northern Maramureş will only mention local stuff that is not mentioned in Zakarpattia Oblast, and basics that are necessary for understanding, but when talking about historic monuments, some ecological parks, local traditions, it seems to me logical to do this in Northern Maramureş, not in Zakarpattia Oblast. This will only enhance the richness of the culture of Zakarpattia Oblast.
  • Maramureş County has the same legitimacy as Zakarpattia Oblast, so again, events after 1920 go here, and everything about population/economy/modern politics etc
  • Máramaros or Maramureş I see as an article dealing with the region prior to 1918-1920, especially when it is about history. So, it is like Carpathian Ruthenia, only it's geographical, not ethnical. I have not included yet history in the article Northern Maramureş - if we create this article Máramaros or Maramureş, then most of history prior to 1918 should go here, while Northern Maramureş should contain only later events, and only short reference to older ones with direct link to the other article. The problem that arises here, is whether Máramaros was meant to be an article about the region (county, voevodate, and before) in general, or only about the county Máramaros in 1870-1918. We should ask the main editors of that article what was/is their intention. If 1870-1918, then ok, then just add that events prior to 1870 go to another article called simply Maramureş, and those after 1918 - to Zakarpattia Oblast and Maramureş County. Also, I see the name Maramureş as perfectly neutral, provided we say immmediately that in Hungarian is Máramaros, in German is..., in Ukrainian... The preferred English name happens to come from the Romanian, so what? Just like Ugocsa and Ung, the English names happen to come from Hungarian, not from the Romanian Ugocea and Unguras, or Transylavania happens not to come from Romanian either - I don't see any problem. We have to use the name that is more often used in English, or established as the standard form in English.
  • Maramureş (historical region) - honestly, I suggest to delete this article; here is why: only after 1965 the name Maramures was extended (and only informally, and not evryone accepted or understood this) not only over Maramures county, but also over Satu Mare county. There is no official region Maramures (in the sence or "region" being something bigger than "county", something contianing several counties). The name is only used unofficially by a very limitted amount of people. I rather see "Northern Transylvania(historical and statistical region)", containing 6 counties: Maramures, Satu Mare, Salaj, Oradea, Cluj and Bistrita-Nasaud. I do not confuse it with "Northern Transylvania(1940-1944)", which does not contain all of the former, and contains also something extra from the Southern Transylvania (parts of Mures, Harghita and Covasna). I see legitimate for Crisana to have a separate article as a historic region, because it containes 3 counties: Arad, Oradea and Satu Mare, but I don't understand why some want to artificially create a region Maramures just because they do not want to see the combination of words "Crisana and Maramures" as 3+1 counties, but prefer 2+2 counties. It is like playing with geographical names.
Now, that does not mean that Tara Oasului, Almasul Salajan, Ciceu, etc are not close culturally with Maramures - they are, but they are close to Bistrita or Salaj in the same degree, and there are also important local specificities. Being situated in a territory which is rich in culture, they desearve (in time) separate articles. So what if that refers to small regions of 100,000 or 200,000 people? If there is something interesting and specific - by all means, they will have articles of their own, obviously linked to the articles about bigger regions (counties, Crisana, Transylvania, Romania, etc)
If we agree that my view described above holds (more or less), then Maramureş (disambiguation) can look like this:

Maramureş may refer to one of the following:

What do you think? :Dc76 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I answered you in my user page. See you later! Bye for today.:Dc76 02:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your plan on my talk page. I suggest we start implementing all this and work out some smaller detainls along the way, because I find it difficult to keep all these details in mind (they have grown so much in one single day!) I don't think we will find ourselves contradicting each other, but I will from time to time ask for more clarification, just to understand how things are organized. I copied all our discussion here. I suggest to leave each other short notes or simply just the links to what changes we do according to the plan we talked. Last thing, I promiss to work, but I don't promiss to do it today-tomorrow. It will be slow. (I am busy in real life. I hope you understand.) :Dc76 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just making sure we will continue discussing here, so as not to miss somthing.:Dc76 04:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On November 21, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ion Râmaru, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Many thanks again for your work!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

Thank you for your help on the Charles J. Bates article. It earned a DYK yesterday. I greatly appreciated it. Chris 13:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Animal sounds in foreign languages

I am sorry because I did not have time to answer you before. Regarding these sounds, I do not have time to add Serbian sounds into article, but since Montenegrin language is 100% identical to Ijekavian dialect of Serbian spoken in Montenegro, then if you want to post Serbian names there, you can simply copy Montenegrin names and write that those names are Serbian. I checked the article, and these sounds are same even in my own Ekavian dialect of Serbian, so you will not mistake if you simply copy Montenegrin names. PANONIAN (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contact details

Can I talk to you in private? Can I have your Yahoo Messenger ID? Onel dragos 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Ştefănescu

Don't know if you are watching the article George Ştefănescu. Turns out the original author was Ştefănescu's son. Very interesting, and he's being very helpful as I try to beat the article into shape. But he doesn't have much English, just Romanian and German. At Talk:George Ştefănescu#Several_more_questions he made some very interesting comments, which I did my best to translate, but I'm stuck on a few words, and might have gotten something wrong (though not much, I'm pretty confident). Could I prevail upon you to check my work and make any relevant corrections? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 08:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Paris is worth a mass"

Very apt. It is a pleasure working with you on this. Bucharest, I suppose, is worth a homily.

Are you interested yet in being nominated to be an administrator? I could give you a ringing endorsement: "Biruitorul and I have about 2.7 languages in common, but have diametrically opposite politics. I'm a New York Jewish red-diaper-baby leftist whose guitar-playing father (due to the vagaries of New York ethnic politics) sang "Kevin Barry" with gusto; he may be the only Ulster Unionist Romanian monarchist in captivity. I have observed him to be one of the English-language Wikipedia's most excellent, erudite, even-handed, unbiased contributors; the only reason I even know his politics is from the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, where political discussion is freewheeling." If I'm on vacation when you finally decide to throw your hat in the ring, you can quote me. - Jmabel | Talk 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Pinochet

Oh damn. Terribly sorry about that. I don't know what happened there; I saw your name and the edit, but I guess it wasn't you that added all that stuff. I'm removing my comments. Nishkid64 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comments on my talk page

Apologies if that's hard to understand. I have cleaned up the comments so they should read in a more facile manner. ... aa:talk 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long-awaited reply on various topics

Man, I sooo need to apologize for the delay. I kept prioritizing various confrontations with various users - one peachy one on Romanian wiki (the talk page for the ro equivalent of Armenians in Romania), and you have probably seen the rest.

Having witnessed your activities, I feel that voting in favor was my moral duty. I hope you win.

To answer your first query: I think that the x-American templates is pretty much ok, considering some of the alternatives. The unwritten rule on wikipedia seems to be to apply the present-day [supposed or not] links between state and ethnicity backwards, and the practice has resulted in a weird equilibrium. When talking about Ruthenians et al, we have the pattern wherby Ukrainians "take over" - probably weird, and certainly problematic, but as habitual as calling early Transylvanian Romanian emigrants "Romanian-", and not "Austrian-", "Hungarian-", and "Austro-Hungarian-Americans". (Although it seems that the latter ethnicity was paradoxically becoming a more and more valid choice for the state's subjects just after 1900 - with the "hypocritical" definition of Aurel Popovici as Romanian over the impossibility of defining Anton Durcovici as anything really. A thing to ponder for the future is creating and advertising ethnic categories for citizens of Austria-Hungary, and place them under "Cat:Austro-Hungarian people"; however, even though it seems to be a necessary research tool, there are some immense problems to consider before we do it.) On the other hand, such articles could rely solely on self-reference for more modern entries (in any case, they would actually have to find a notorious Moldovan American), A bigger problem than the ones you mention is the incompetent tendency to ascribe a Moldovan to pre-1940 natives of Bessarabia (interestingly, to natives of the entire Bessarabia). As I have said, the equilibrium is uneasy, but the template appears to be workable (even if the tendencies may need to be checked and combed through for ever... and ever... and ever...)

You make a fine point about Rimaru vs. Pirvulescu (only because the latter dies before 1993). I have to rant, though. It bothers me that so many of us keep advertising ours as a non-peripheral culture etc, and then fail to notice that, due only to our accumulated indifference, other languages would basically have to establish transliterations for what is, in effect, a Latin alphabet; that sound is one of the most frequent ones in Romanian, yet we are in the process of establishing what it should be written down as, like some Papuan dialect. Thank you so much, incompetent Academic institutions! Anyway, I don't think that we'll ever find an expert on this matter, but we may set our own rule in time (which may turn Parvulescu into Pirvulescu, or Rimaru back into Ramaru).

If I see more articles like Medgidia, I'm gonna be up for brain surgery. People who write that much crap should be thrown potatoes, because they force me to take an interest in their articles, and I cannot even place that town on a map of Dobruja. :)

I found a two-sentence long article on Mr. Fulga in the 1978 encyclopedia. It basically cites his birthplace (which is... Fulga, Prahova County) and the titles of his main writings, none of which rings a bell. According to them, he wrote "nuvele cu implicatii fantastice (Straniul paradis; Doamna straina)", "romane de evocare a anilor razboiului si a dramelor de constiinta (Eroica; Alexandra si infernul; Moartea lui Orfeu)" and "piese de teatru"). That's about it.

About the cabinets: don't get your hopes up. Alas, they are copypasted off of some Rompres site I myself bumped into a while back, and data does not reach beyond 1944. Basically, they're done downloading as it is. Dahn 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thank you

Biruitorul, it's my pleasure. However, I see that a some editors have expressed reservations regarding your experience. If the nom fails, I suggest you act on their recommendations, and I'm sure your eventual renom will succeed.

On a different note, I realize that you didn't intend it that way, but "Polish Cabal" is something of a pejorative on WP, so I respectfully request you avoid using it. Appleseed (Talk) 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

No problem! Khoikhoi 07:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on RfA & Ştefănescu

Looks like we will not get consensus on you being an admin at this time. No really active opposition, just people who seem to think you need to be more involved in the quasi-administrative tasks like warning vandals, participating in *FD, etc., first. Interesting: 2-1/2 years ago when I was up for this, no one raised this sort of concerns (which would have been equally apt about me at that time), but I guess the community standards have changed. You'll just have to decide whether this is stuff you want to do, or if you'd rather not be an admin.

Meanwhile, more great stuff at Talk:George Ştefănescu#Alte lamuriri; there were a couple of phrases I couldn't translate confidently, though, so your help would again be appreciated.

Ideal Wikipedian conditions in Seattle in the moment: so much ice on the roads that they've pretty much shut the city, but the power is working fine, as is DSL. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cu placere. Pe langa ca nu mai strica un admin roman, sa stii editarile tale m-au surprins placut (de ex. treaba aia migaloasa cu diacriticile...) Greier 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: banned users, see my comment in the RFA. I think she is totally wrong. If she is right, then I should no longer be a sysop. We'll see what comes of this. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

You are quite welcome, and I do hope that you become an Administrator here on Wikipedia. Still, I would be lying if I said that I fully support your quest for Adminship: Wikipedia would lose the talents (or rather, the talents would be preoccupied in other things) of a dedicated Wikipedian if he became an Admin.Sharkface217 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banat

Here you have one historical map of Romania from 1939 showing provinces from that time: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaEthno/politicalmap/Romania_1939.GIF PANONIAN (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Detrimental adminship

pt toţi pe care'i ştiu...Anonimu 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rfa

You are welcome.

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romania provinces

Ok, if provinces were formed in 1938 and not in 1929, then you should change that sentence in the Banat article. PANONIAN (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my wikitypos in Template:Archbishops of Canterbury. Not bad, I only had 2 with all those nbsps. Bless you, my child :) — MrDolomite | Talk 15:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Romania

Salve, vezi ca putoare de FunkyFly iarasi editeaza datele economice ale Romaniei. --89.35.79.2 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so 1. It is Bonaparte. 2. My edits are sourced, check the links.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mersi

Mersi pentru corecţiile de la articolul relativ la Opera Română din Cluj. --Roamataa 21:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cu plăcere. Dacă este OK, aş prefera să nu ne formalizăm şi să adresăm reciproc per tu. În cazul în care sunteţi/eşti de acord. --Roamataa 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rfa

nothing, good work and good luck ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:ObRoy

Hi, and sorry for not addressing the issues you raised, but I have an emergency. Please tell this user what the issue actually is, as he is threatening me with a ban for cleaning up articles that were created on a whim. Dahn 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention, Biru. I have one objection,though: Alexandru Suţu had originally been moved by me from whatever it had been earlier to Alexander Soutzos - per a heated debate with our common friends, the Greek editors (heated not because I disagreed, but because one of them had started making changes halfway, and accusing me of naming articles on Phanariotes to a Romanian version on purpose). I think that it should be moved back to the neutral and traditional Englishified form "Alexander Soutzos", per "Alexander Mourousis", "Constantine Mavrocordatos" etc. We are going to need an admin's tools to perform the change, so here's hoping ;). Dahn 01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to tell you, I really despise such distractions coming from users with original ideas and who feel they are unaccountable (this especially since all the articles created have been stubs of stubs, and well written like crap). Check out this interesting fact of life: I notice that a newbie, User:Alvac, is engaged in creating articles without diacritics, with arbitrary titles, in some cases duplicate of other articles, and that he is intervening in articles already present with some absurd edits. I also notice that he is cranky to say the least, and that his use of English is unmistakably original. We have a little exchange, then he apparently ceases editing altogether. Out of the blue cometh User:ObRoy, who appears to have followed all this debate, reproaches me some imaginary deeds in unmistakably original English, then starts work on articles that seem to pick up precisely where Alvac has left off... Now, I care only too little about the allegations and insults aimed at me in the process (as counter-productive as that may be, you know that I have tended to grab the bull by the horns when faced with that type of response), What I do care about is this apparent "confederation of erudite editors" - since the more careless of admins and stewards not see the lips moving when one editor sits on the other's knees.
I would contribute relevant things to wikipedia rather than to babysit (I keep bumping into interesting things as of late, and I want to get to finish the promised changes on the PCR page). Yet again, I have to admire your patience: one of the many reasons I expect you to come out of that ordeal as a biruitor.
Please, update your watchlist for those. Thanks. Dahn 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
About the links... er... Rost... and a post in some forum... you're kidding... right? I mean, they are severely biased (some of Rost's content even makes me want to propose blacklisting it). You can find all the adequate info in scholarly works,without the propaganda. I gravitate around three or four books and an article that deal with such topics - briefly or at length -, and I know of at least one collection of essays that looks at the heart of Orthodoxy-State relations in Romania. Alas, I don't own all of them, and I don't take as much interest in the topic. But when an article starts with the assumption that the state was controlled by the Freemasons, it has neutrality issues at its core. Dahn 05:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was adding as you were replying. Rost is crypto-Legionary (see the banner link to the right here and the scandal here - it's weird that you have not heard of the latter - and: Pana si noua revista criptolegionara, Rost (nr. 5/2003), fondata la inceputul anului 2003 la Bucuresti, care i-a dedicat lui Paulescu un numar omagial special, schiteaza un gest de distantare fata de numeroasele texte ale medicului (intre care un loc aparte il ocupa cele 3 volume: Biserica si Sinagoga fata cu pacificarea Omenirii, 1924-1925), vorbind despre "o serie dura de brosuri si articole antievreiesti si antimasonice" - aparute dupa primul razboi mondial"[2]) For the other, some of the stuff in there is controversial at a quick glance, but, as I have said, I don't have to go as far: I have to question it simply based on the fact that it begins with a very fringe and inflammatory assumption (not to mention that it does not indicate its source). Dahn 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. I could even accept the theory that a large number of politicians were Masons, but my response to this is similar to the view I have about Jews in communism (which you have probably seen me post a couple of hours ago): it's basically resumed by the question "and?" (the full point I was making on that page implied, of course, the verifiable notion that most Romanian communists were never, in fact, Jews, and that the spectacular growth of the party poses people such as those writing for Rost with an actual problem). In the future, when I'll start the promised edits for the Iron Guard article, I'll at least be hinting to Church-Politics relations for that period, and, with your help reference beyond for those articles you want to work on. Dahn 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the main problem is that they have been identified by neutral sources as nationalist in discourse and Legionary apologetics. They may deny Legionary links, but they are still a very problematic source (imagine Anonimu making use of Păunescu when referencing info about Communist Romania - on the basis of Păunescu having denied being a communist...). Now, the matter is indeed one of discourse and what one may read into it, and never of explicit connections: but allow me to speculate that journalists would be much more open about Legionary connections if they wouldn't know that (a) they would discredit themselves and (b) they would risk paying fines through their noses. Dahn 06:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
My argument about Rost was actually a correlation of the two: the source has been doubted for being crypto-Legionary (them being allegedly "crypto"-, I don't know how you expect them to confirm it), as well as being manifestly nationalist in discourse. I respect a nationalist discourse (as long as it that does not rely on fallacies), but: I could never call a self-declared and self-promoting nationalist discourse "neutral" or "objective" (none of which exclude the possibility that it is right), just as I'd rather not build an article on Stalin around references from Trotsky (even though I personally think Trotsky's view of Stalin was right, I cannot think it was objective). It is equivalent to referencing RoMare articles by Gheorghe Buzatu - the man is a licensed professional, his article's content may be surprisingly objective (although I'm yet to se such a writing by Buzatu), but do we really want to use RoMare as a reference for anything other than "what RoMare is known to have alleged"?
The sources you seek are still in abundance ([3], [4], [5]), (also see above and below the last two links) without the problems attached.
Btw, Vosganian claims that the Rost issue is slander, given that they republished articles he had sent elsewhere (this is just to clarify a loose end).
About the Jewish - Communist connection: to your excellent points (aside from innate intelligence, where I keep my reserves due to my quite different views on race and ethnicity), I would like to add the Romanian particularities, which should be made clear to those anti-Semites who still blow that old horn. Aside from the fact that, once you are rejected by an entire system (and most vocally by its left-wing branches - from radicals in the PNL to Iorga to some Poporanists), you will naturally head for the margin, where you are protected. If every political mood had acquired an insurrectional aspect after WWI in between fascism and Leninism, the urban class was naturally gravitating towards the latter - which means that the ethnic Romanian would-be-revolutionaries, not as radical in approach (because they were not as close to the periphery), were present in the same percentages, but not in urban Leninism (after the 1907 scandal, their leaders tended to occupy that mi-chemin between city and countryside - be they the Peasantists or the Iron Guard). And, of course,we are talking numbers: I am ever so stunned to hear a person talk about the "Communism of Jews" and then insist on how the PCdR was a fringe party; now, I may be wrong, but I think 1,000 people do not represent anything among 15 million, and that all conclusion about Romanian society based on that number is grossly exaggerated. But, even so, we know for sure that, starting ca. 1930, Stalin Romanianized the party. I have no idea about percentages of membership 1n 1922-1930, but I know that in the 1930s Jews were about a third of members, and they were always below the number of Romanians. None of this mattered in 1947, when the party "somehow" rose to 710,000 members (how many of those newly-arrived were Jewish?). Based on that, I would also tend to think that the impression about the over-abundance of Jews among activists during 1947-1957, although possibly accurate, is also irrelevant: the party structure, was still small in comparison with the number of arrivals, reflected what the party had been (a minuscule head over a giant); those newer cadres that were added to the minuscule head had to have "credentials" of some sort (they were probably pushed forward by acquaintance, preference, status as victims etc, not under any circumstance by "shared ethnicity").
I knew about Leonte (and his wife Hermina), have heard Tismăneanu talk about them, and I had, alas, seen the dreaded article on ro:wiki. The issue with Tismăneanu was actually whether he specifically said that his parents were Jewish (I think he did, but I could not reference it, and had to rely on finding neutral sources). Incidentally, I also bumped into information about Leonte when I was looking for sources on Iorgu Iordan (turns out that he was one of those who voted to have Goma expelled - one of the many problematic parts in Goma's recent attack is that the man, unlike Iordan, did not vote in favor of turning him over to the Securitate! in fact, he also admits someplace else that a third person, also Jewish, voted against any sort of punishment...). Dahn 11:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cease moves which are against Naming Conventions

You have recently today moved plenty of pages (biographies of Moldavian and Wallachian monarchs) to names which are contradictory to what is instructed at Naming Conventions for rulers. You cannot keep your naming habit in one corner of Wikipedia which goes against valid Naming Conventions. Cease those moves immediately. This warning must not be erased, it is for maintenance and administration of sanctions. To erase this warning is regarded as vandalism. ObRoy 02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Convention for rulers

Is located at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)

There are several instructions. Two of the most pertinent appear to be:

(yet examples: Ilia Alexander, Prince of Wallachia, and so forth - not "Ilia Alexandru" without any context - every reader of English Wikipedia is not a Romanian nor it is clear from the outset that a non-contextualized name happens to refer to a Romianian monarch)

  • Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; William I, German Emperor, not William I of Prussia, although there should be redirects from these locations. When several states are so associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the intro when one gets the name of the article.

(AND, if two states are so equal that there is no particular "association" more to one of them, then solution has been like Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia, Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife - so it may possibly be "XX, Prince of Moldavia, Prince of Wallachia").

Observe that I have not moved any page related to this discussion, and am going to retain my uninvolvement. I am warning you against moves you and your companion have made against the naming convention. ObRoy 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Îmi pare rău. Sînt sigur că într-o lună sau două vei ajunge. Nu te lăsa. Eşti tare. I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luci

Sorry about the RfA outcome, but I'm sure you'll storm through at the next elections.

Thanks for the link: I had bumped into it once, though, for some reason, it was going all the way down to the bottom of the page, and complained to myself that "there is no way I'm reading that". But you have brought me back to my senses - I first used it to add content to Gheorghe Tătărescu (I would appreciate your comments on the latter, btw, as I am beginning to begin pondering about pondering about requesting it for FA status - I'll also have more illustrations ready in some time). The link seems to indicate that Tătărescu was an inmate at the time (which is in contradiction with all other sources), but this is probably a mere unfortunate turn of phrase (the "prisons were they were located" part). Dahn 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bantcho Bantchevsky

I assume he spoke English, given the length of his residency in the United States and the fact that he appears to have been able to communicate quite well with his neighbors. Trouble is, neither Times article mentions that fact, and I'm wary of slipping it in merely as an assumption, even one that appears to be an almost-certainty. I guess it wouldn't hurt matters too much to include it... --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 07:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, it was partly due to the fact that his knowledge of English was so obvious that I forgot to include it; I have a rather nasty tendency to overlook things that are right in front of me, I'm afraid. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 07:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I'm sorry you didn't succeed. :( You would have been a good admin. If you are nominated again, feel free to leave me a message so I can vote – I normally don't follow RfA's, but would like to support you. I'm sure next time you'll succeed. – Alensha talk 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I would have voted for you too if I'd known you were up István 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So would I! You need to let us know about these things! :) K. Lástocska 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn. Well, it sounds like enough people had the same addressable issue that it should be a shoo-in later. - Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dacia Aurelia

Asta e doar o precizare: Orsova e situata ceva mai la vest de raul Timoc. Trebuie sa precizam si asta ca sa poata fi un reper ptr straini care nu stiu unde e Orsova.

Te rog sa mai traduci si pasajul de mai jos si sa-l pui in art si cumva si precizarea. Multumesc!

Dacia Aureliană a fost formată din "partea de răsărit a Moesiei superioare" şi din "partea de apus a Moesiei inferioare" şi ţinea de la vest "cam din dreptul Orşovei" până la "vărsarea râului Oescus (azi Iskăr)" în Dunăre, asta în nord, respectiv în sud "atingea cursurile râurilor Axius (azi Vardar) şi Strymon (azi Struma)", incluzând aici şi oraşele Scupi (azi Skoplje) şi Pautalia (azi Kiustendil)[1]

[edit] Note

  1. ^ Istoria românilor, Constantin C. Giurescu şi Dinu C. Giurescu, p. 135

[edit] 56

Yes, we should get back to that, especially the template. I remember you were going to write a bit about events outside Budapest, go ahead and write it whenever you have time. I will add more to "cultural representations" and I'm also very tempted to write about the political repercussions of 56 up to present day....but I am pretty busy these next few weeks! :) I will write it, maybe around New Year. What ideas do you have? K. Lástocska 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your ideas! I look forward to when we can start implementing them. :) K. Lástocska 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ştefănescu, yet again

Talk:George Ştefănescu#The Sixties: care to check my translations? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 08:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Man, it was one in the morning, I was tired; looks like I made more mistakes just typing English than I did understanding Romanian. I still get really thrown by verb tenses, though, sometime, don't I? - Jmabel | Talk 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guţă [Tătărescu]

Hm. Yes, I certainly see your points about Tătărescu: I wanted to introduce more stuff on allof those at different times, but could not find any. I'll have a much better chance with Alexandru Averescu, won't I?

I'm not gonna pester you about Rost, although I think you should at least indicate the POV issue if you want to reference it (and I stand by my point that non-problematic references could be found for all of that). Btw, two points of their answer jumped at me: first, they talk about "Gândirism" as if it some great uncorruptible theory, when, in fact, it was the frustrated little brother of the Iron Guard (some would say that it was even more morally objectionable than the Guard overall); secondly, they seem to have a theory about Junimea and what is supported that would make a good section of prominent Junimists roll in their graves (it is also be the first instance where somebody would claim that Junimea and Gândirism would have anything in common. On the whole, I'd say their official attitude is to go as far as the law will permit them. Dahn 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All of that can be dealt with,including images (some Magazine Istorice of the 1970s published political cartoons from the 1920s - I wanted to scan a very elloquent image of him a while back, but forgot which issue it was, and didn't bother looking for it afterwards + I don't own a scanner, but i can use one from time to time). Thanks for the positive words on the text, but I'm sure it has weaknesses there - when and if you feel like reviewing the article further, perhaps you'll find more bugs that it should get rid of.
So we agree to keep writing fără Rost, then :). Although I suppose Anonimu would tell me I suffer from a childhood disease of communism, I have to say that I agree with your point about free expression on such matters (even if I think that Holocaust deniers should at least pay fines - not the case with Rost and even the Legionary press, who simply refuses to talk about this matter). However, I don't think that the law has as much effect as it could: what newspapers like Rost aim for is respectability, and they seem to want to drag more of the Legionary past into respectability (in other words, they have a biased version of the facts, but that is because they are trying to avoid the unavoidable truths about the Iron Guard, and they will always be moderates in comparison to their very models); on the other hand, the underclass of neo-nazis (Antonescans, Simists, those Codrenists who don't strive to appear like some sort of benign Francoist Scouts, as well as other groups) and/or national-Stalinists will always marginally produce their offensive, choppy, and pornographic pulp, with no intent for reaching into the mainstream — where the arm of the law could not afford to ignore them. It is also possible that the Rost-like situation itself encourages its initiators to avoid clear terms: aside from the fact that, in New Right-manner, they have to know by now that they are factually more complex than their idols (and so, they are "something else", whether they want to or not), they know they could probably scare off a lot of customers by stating all their views out load and proud (those conservatives who fear radicalism, even though they sympathize with the message; those people who don't want to get involved into something problematic; those stiff nationalists who obsess over classic nationalist figures to the point of picking Iorga over Codreanu; army officers who salute you if you say the word "Antonescu"; rigid nationalists who think that, once "Romanianized", Communism has done its share of good and is an important part of the national patrimony - which leads them to view the Iron Guard as agents of disorder etc). Dahn 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Menem

Congress has never been independent, least of all under a Peronist president, ever. What Menem didn't want, Congress didn't pass, and conversely, what Menem wanted, the Congress always gave (the opposition either sheepishly agreed, or was outnumbered). But yes, you make a valid point; we should find references that indicate which measures were passed as presidential decrees, which were sent to Congress by the Executive, and which were original Congress initiatives. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

Updated DYK query On 8 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Radu Irimescu, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)(c) • 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship retry

Biruitorul, if you are up for admin again in the future, please let me know. We have disagreed more in the past than we have agreed, but they are on issues of interpretation and not on policy or Wikipedia so I still think that you would make a terrific admin and I would very much like to get a chance to support you. - Mauco 16:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfC

Thank you for your comment. In case you are not watching my RfC, you may want to see Responce by Ghirla to István endorsment of Biruitorul and to your outside view as well.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This message is what the RFC is about. Piotrus, please look at your contributions and estimate how much of them are "requests for input", "Ghirlandajo said... so I search for your opinion", "I know that you have had conflicts with Ghirla, so please comments on his latest outburst...", "thanks for reporting on Ghirla's actions", etc, etc. I don't how others feel in such situations, but I regards such actions as unseemly and incivil. How many Russian editors did you ask to comment? I suspect that zero. Can you name a single instance when I acted this way? --Ghirla -трёп- 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I ask editors for input when I am unsure of the right course of action or when I believe they can offer someting valuable to the discussion (I believe user talk pages were invented for that purpose) and I do that without suggesting them what they should write, or ranting about their nationality or experience when they disagree with me. As for Can you name a single instance when I acted this way?, your turning of Russian new articles annoucement page into a 'blacklist' comes to mind, for example. Also, note the link (I see you failed to provide any, so let me provide you with an example from the last hour or so: [6], [7], [8], [9]...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

In reply to your question: why the scare quotes around the words "massacres" and "betrayals"? You seem to refer to "the massacre" and "the betrayal", while Piotrus has a tendency to present the whole Polish history as a chain of massacres and betrayals. According to him, there were massacres of Poles (e.g., Massacre of Praga) during all Russo-Polish conflicts, and each Russian victory in such a conflict is explained by a "Western betrayal". As for the rest of your comments, I'm not surprized at your ready sympathy for Polish historical traumas (we all sympathize with them); I'm concerned at your lack of understanding of admin abuse, which is the subject of RfC. You say that you collaborate productively with Ukrainian, Hunagrian editors, etc. So do I. I enjoy working with Turkish, Swedish, Finnish, Ukrainian and even Lithuanian editors, but not with Piotrus. Don't you find it strange that the RfC was started by a Russian and a Lithuanian? Has Lithuania suffered from Russia less than Poland or what? --Ghirla -трёп- 17:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Although you steer the discussion to content disputes, I have neither time nor opportunity to examine the whole sum of Polish-Russian (Lithuanian/German) grievances, as my participation in such disputes is actually very small. I don't want Piotr to be punished (that's not the purpose of RfCs), but I want the community to decry his abuse, so that it would stop. So far, I get only increase of it all, with Piotr running from one user talk page to another with messages more suitable for my kids: "Mum, Mum, look what Michael did!" --Ghirla -трёп- 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I decided to take my time and explain my position on Katyn, as you have found it prudent to raise the issue in your comment. Since I take no interest in 20th-century and modern politics, I have not examined the issue in detail, but I insisted that we should include into "external links" a link to www.katyn.ru, a website which presents some evidence that the crime was perpetrated by Nazis rather than Soviets. This is based on the ArbCom opinion that every fringe theory should be presented appropriately in the text of the article. If there are different opinions on the guilt (not the fact), they should be mentioned in the text, rather than suppressed. The coverage of 9/11 includes mention of conspiracy theories that the event was engineered by CIA. The same principle is valid for Chechen bombings in Moscow, and for every other such controversial event, but apparently not for Katyn. Needless to say, I was summarily reverted by Piotrus and Halibutt, and there is neither link nor basic information about other opinions in the article. I had neither time nor energy to chat or fight with scores of meatpuppets that were recruited by Piotrus on the Polish noticeboard, therefore I moved on to other issues and there the matter ended. --Ghirla -трёп- 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

there is neither link nor basic information about other opinions in the article. The article does mention there are other theories, it is noted in lead and discussed in detail in two paragraphs in 'Revelations'; it is refereced with several English language sources more reliable (and understandable to most readers) then a Russian-language website. Why I am not suprised that again Ghirla's claims and the facts are not on the same page...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irimescu et al.

Thank you for writing the Irimescu article in the first place. I had glanced on the MAN page before, and I noticed the hat, but that's about all contact I had with the man - btw, you'd think a general in the most modern branch of the armed forces would not be wearing the most outdated hat (although I guess it's getter than a ceremonial leather cap and goggles). Same thing happened to me with Iorgu Iordan - I had to pick if I was going to write about him or some other commie mentioned in the source; it was then that I remembered reading that Iordan was Bulgarian, which was interesting enough and was going to help me file a new addition for the cat I created back when I needed to "bridge" information on Rakovski and Nicolae Vogoride - so I said "if I can find it mentioned in this source, I'll write an article on him"... and what do you know, it was.

I don't know why Anonimu enjoys wild goose hunts so much, but he's getting repetitive and tiring me. There are two things that annoy me to death in wiki bureaucratic habits: one is using the "this article is based on its x-language equivalent" (as if we couldn't just call for sources etc.) and the absurdity of referencing the same thing on millions of pages (especially when referencing a link, which is basically indicating that we expect people not to click link). But that's me, and I have devised ways not to have to deal with criticism over that. In the Ceauşescu family case, I suggest to either duplicate the references to that page (never mind the sophistry on the talk page about "not being to source alcoholism, nepotism, and abuse", supposedly because they would "always be subjective"; for some reason, Anonimu always thinks that it is not possible to source that two brothers had the same name...) or to reduce the text for the family to brief mentions and leave it to other articles to explain Andruţă's behavior et al. Btw: there is a major problem which you should consider - what is the family article to this? Dahn 01:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That was infuriating and sinister. I wanted to say what the man is, and my version goes beyond "madman", but he is not worth the seconds it would take me to type it (never mind the "bettering through Holocaust" shit, the man does not even ponder that Antonescu also "made better citizens" of his Iron Guardists, and probably of his relatives, but sending them on a cruise to the Urals). Just how much damage has that man caused by now? Why is he still allowed to operate over there? These are the questions Romanian wikipedians need to ask themselves.
The statistic is untenable, as it does not specify what it relies on. There are estimates that I've seen (and a statistic in Tismăneanu, that I did not memorize, which relied on self-definition and showed a group of "Moldovans"). What I do know is that: the statistic provided in that piece of crap, especially since it may be an overall estimate for 1921-1944, is cropped to suit a taste (22% may just as well be, and likely is, the largest single ethnic group); Jews were probably the absolute majority before 1933, i.e. before Stalin ordered Romanians to be recruited en masse (unlike most of the Jew and other minority early members, those Romanians did not take refuge to the USSR and were not decimated there...); in the late 1940s, the PCR's ranks rose 710 times (for real!), and, of course, not "with Jews" (but, as we know, largely with Legionaries and, in parallel, with PSD members). I wouldn't even know where to begin removing that poison, but I would recommend wikipedians there to ban and revert on sight. Dahn 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right about the banning utopia. What's really sad is that I see a user like Arie Inbar, whom I presume id Jewish (he adds interwikis for Hebrew articles) who makes small edits on the texts without noticing or without attempting to intervene against their main and most insulting problems (for one, that the "sources" quoted are disgusting propaganda pieces).

I have a better source mentioning the rhyme,and it provides an interesting context (apparently, the rhyme actually surfaced with the Iron Guard, or at least the Securitate thought so); I was thinking of including it as well in the PCR article - but then decided that it is a tad too specific (the entire article would provide just one reference in th article), and I'm trying to limit information to the very relevant (and to sources that provide detail on more than one sentence). On the other hand, that article and perhaps your source will come in handy at the Iron Guard article, which we should expand and reference in the future (feel free to add your source there already, in case you want to - I shall be visiting bearing many lovely gifts in due time). In any case, do hold on to that source - it is valuable on a number of articles.

Sorry, I owed you a reply on the Argetoianu issue (I still owe you replies on other issues, but perhaps they'll come up again in conversation). For the date used: it is reliable enough, IMO (in the sense that I see no reason why it shouldn't be - note that it gave a date for the arrest that was backed by another source, while the other source did not deal with the detention in depth enough for more to come up etc). The infoboxes: yes, I admit, the question marks are a bit annoying (consider that more potentates of the Ancient World have definite dates than articles on 20th cent. Ro politicians...); on the other hand, let's consider more templates in the future. I say keep variants in the sandbox - if I bump into info, I'll add it there and we'll eventually fill in the/more blanks. Dahn 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I burst open when I read the "C. Foamete" thing. Dahn 02:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool link

I've found this for you while fishing for a certain Constantin Burducea: [10]. The link at the top will lead you to a downloadable file - didn't look into it much, and don't know how much more material you can gather, but at least this article looks like good stuff for your BOR project (in case you're still working on that). In any case, I think it's worth holding on to. Dahn 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C's family

i want objective sources... that article has an obvious ironic anti-ceausescu tone...Anonimu 13:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Link, etc

Hi, and sorry for the delay (I had some loose ends in some articles to deal with, as you may have noticed). I wish I had seen the expansion on the elections article earlier - I kept writing about elections in article, and didn't know that they were planned as separate articles. Couldn't tell you about the terminology: I noticed the preferred term for the 1946 elections was "general", and, in my mind, this means that they also elected mayors and councils (I never did bump into any result or even interest for that side of the elections, but what else could have been up for election?); now, I have absolutely no idea about whether other elections were superimposed on each other, or even if that counted in any way before 1938... In any event, we could redirect the 1946 reference to "general election" to "legislative election", if I turn out to be wrong, and keep the latter as the norm in naming. This brings up an interesting subject: I see no reason for the presidential elections to be separate from the parliamentary ones, in case we'll get data on those (at least, we should try). So, if or when we do, I suggest renaming 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 to "general".

Don't worry about not insulting my intelligence: you'd be surprised how many times God forgets me, and, if I did know that detail, it was only because you showed it to me before (not per se: you gave me a link to a google search were you had done this thing, and I figured out what happened, although I never remembered to use it).

Thanks for the link: as I have said, I'd like not to link one-time sources to there, especially if they are unrelated to the main topic. As it is, the reference in the text is limited to 1964, which was the climax, and to political prisoners. I plan to chew through Pe umerii lui Marx, then add detail from the other sources. I'll tweak the sentence for now. Dahn 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are right about the terminology. But don't you think we should have post-89 elections that coincided on th same page, under "general" (which is what they also were)? I cannot imagine any problem with fusing them, but i can see a lot of advantages.
We needn't do anything about the 1946 name in articles as it is. If we create it under a different title, we'll make all the redirects anyway (if anyone wants to take the trouble to make various mentions in articles coincide with the article title, as I have seen people do, fine by me - but I consider it superfluous except for some cases____well, I do have my own quirks in this area, so I shouldn't comment - consider that, when I mask a linked word, I always begin the part to the left of the "|" with a majuscule, although I know that I do not need to... but then again, there are those who edit an article solely to replace the majuscule with a minuscule to the left of the "|").
On the prisons issue, that is precisely what I was thinking. One of the reasons I am taking so much care in referencing the PCR article is to form a "bank" of details that would prove helpful in many other articles (but I'm guessing you know the process - I've seen you using it on Anonimu when he started spraying citneeded tags in there and you copypasted the reference from the Ploughmen's Front article). Dahn 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd tend to go with the former. And, likesay, if we have cats for "legislative" and "presidential" to reflect present-day changes, we can just include fused articles for 1992-2004 in both. Dahn 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)