User talk:Anonimu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Anonimu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our forum

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 19:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! --Bonaparte talk & contribs 20:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salut

Salut si bine ai venit! --Bonaparte talk 12:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fii atent ca asta e om periculos. --Anittas 12:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Cine Anittas? --Bonaparte talk 12:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Io sau el? Anonimu 13:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Tu. lol! --Anittas 12:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Danke :) Bonaparte talk 12:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Illyria

Hai ma, intorcete pe Illyria. Spurcatii aia de draci au inceput sa ne frece tare, din nou.

Si tot asa mai departe. Hai ca te las sa ma jignesti 7 zile, fara sa reactionez. Dankat s-a intors si el. --Anittas 12:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

hmmm... nu --Anonimu 15:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Suparare, suparare;

Niciodata suparare;

Daca ne mai suparam;

Luam valiza si plecam!

Hai ma, ca a venit si nebunul ala de Edlund si ne freaca... --Anittas 08:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

http://p083.ezboard.com/fbalkansfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1279.topic Ah, acuma inteleg... --Anittas 10:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

te rog frumos.. io foloseam invective mai poetice, si oricum inca mai sunt mesaje d'ale mele pe'acolo si poti sa verifici ip'urile (apropo sti de ce am plecat si pana nu o sa se rezolve problema n'o sa revin in persona) --Anonimu 12:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Nu sunt sigur de ce ai plecat. Poate din cauza ungurilor. Daca il ating pe ungaro, o sa faca acelasi argument care ai facut si tu cand te-am atins. Cred ca deja iti este dor de forum. ;) --Anittas 12:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no article about Sándor Petőfi in the Romanian Wikipedia

Hi, why did you insert [1] a link to ro:Alexandru Petőfi? "Wikipedia nu are încă un articol referitor la Alexandru Petőfi." Adam78 16:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) wait until tomorrow. i had a problem with the browser and the article wasn't created.

M-am uitat pe harta aia dar cred ca nu e tocmai 100% adevarata. De exemplu, la cetatea alba, nu sunt decat 1000 de romani. la babele, chishlitza si limanskoye sunt numai romani. la satul nou langa sarata sunt romani si acolo dar pe harta nu apare nimic. Am modificat si eu un pic harta ta pe baza datelor din recensamantul din 2001. zi-mi si mie ce crezi. Si poate i-mi arati si mie un site cu hartile astea din anul 1980. numai bine. Constantzeanu 19:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] imagini

L-am intrebat pe bogdan daca poate sa-mi faca niste imagini, dar vad ca nu mai raspunde. Stiu ca poti sa faci harti, dar nu stiu daca poti sa faci harti de batalie si alte chestii. Uite ce ai fi bine sa avem:

Poti sa faci unele din lucrurile alea? Emblema ar fi buna pentru articolul History of Moldavia, iar restul pentru articole despre batalii. Mersi. --Anittas 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dlogosz

Am scris sursele pe Illyria. Poti sa le citesti aici. --Anittas 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dobrogea

Am pus deja datele. A propos, mie personal cel puţin mi-au plăcut f. mult hărţile tale. Vroiam să ştiu, le-ai făcut după alte hărţi de pe internet sau pur şi simplu după datele de la recensăminte pentru fiecare localitate? Numai bine. Constantzeanu 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tara Rumaneasca 1390

According to this map of yours, Bessarabia belonged to Wallachia. You also said:

Wallachia cca 1390, according to an internal document of 1387 and the Treaty with Poland of 1390

Have you read these documents? Also, you once said that Bessarabia was probably given by Mircea to Alexandru, yet, when Stephen ruled, Bessarabia was first under the rulership of Hungary and Wallachia. Can you explain these exchanges of land? Also on that map, I see "Omlas" being a enclave of Wallachia. How come? And how come the norther border of Bessarabia has a an almost straight line? --Candide, or Optimism 15:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

in the 1390 treaty with poland, mircea was called Woyvoda Transalpinus, Fogaras et Omlas dux, seurinii comes, terrarum Dobrotici despotus et Tristri dominus. Omlas, Fagaras and Severin were feuds given by the hungarian king to mircea. in the hrisov of 1387, he mentions along his possesions къ Татарскым странами (hope i got it right), translated by most romanian historians as părţile tătăreşti ("tatar parts"). probably this was reffering to territories in southern moldavia, bessarabia and, maybe, northern dobruja. iorga said tht he found a map of wallachia from 1780 that shown besarabia proper (today's bugeac) as part of wallachia. from what i know, hungary never ruled bessarabia after year 1000 (hungarian tribes probably lived in the region before migrating to pannonia). i think you're talking about the port of killia, which was indeed ruled for some time in the 15th century by hungary and wallachia. the border is almost a straight line because nobody knows how much of moldavia did mircea rule. the border on the map is based on Petre Dan's description in Hotarele românismului în date (Litera International, Chişinău, ISBN 973-675-278-X -- ISBN 9975-74-902-X) "Sud Cetatea Albă, Nord Cahul, Nord Tecuci, Sud Pasul Oituz" (south of Cetatea Alba, north of Cahul, north of Tecuci, south of Oituz mountain pass. Anonimu 16:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I meant Chilia. I thought that was a part of Bessarabia. Thanks for the info, but do you know why Mircea received those lands from Hungary, and how Chilia became a Hungarian-Wallachian possession? I think Genova also had the port - or at least the fortress - but I don't know how they got it. They also had another fortress along the Nistru. --Candide, or Optimism 17:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
sorry, mircea didn't receive them, one of the previous rulers of wallachia did. Amlas, Fagaras and Severin were given by Louis I of Hungary to Vladislav I of Wallachia in october 1366, after the second accepted the hungarian suzerainty. i don't know for sure how chilia became hungarian and wallachian. in 1435 it was still part of moldavia Anonimu 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well, I think that when it comes to Severin, it was not given, but returned to Wallachia. If you know of any books that cover this period of time in detail, pls let me know. I once had the history of Stefan cel Mare by Iorga, but was too young to read it. Now, I don't know where it is. --Candide, or Optimism 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harta

Buna; ar fi bine sa avem niste harti care arata conflictele din 1476 intre Stefan si Meñli Giray; Stefan si Mehmed; Dracula si Laiota; iar Dracula si Stefan cotropind Tara Ro. Harta ar si reprezentata cu sageti care arata ofensiva si retragere. Regiunele incluse sunt Moldova, Transilvania, si Tara Ro. Daca ai chef sa le faci, sa-mi spui si am sa-ti prezint date, etc. --Candide, or Optimism 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

i don't know.. let me see some info.. but anyway, they won't be free... you'll have to do something for me... Anonimu 13:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You want me be to argue your case in Illyria? --Candide, or Optimism 15:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
i won't come back there!(of course if i'm invited i'll give it a thougt, but i don't want you to do that.. if you do it, i won't make the maps anymore) Anonimu 19:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, what is your request? --Candide, or Optimism 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's see first what can i do with those maps, then we'll talk about it... Anonimu 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but wait for me to gather the info for the places, etc. Btw, Iasi played a tie ;) I'll message you soon, after Barca versus Madrid... --Candide, or Optimism 19:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I had in mind.

Colours: Moldavians (red), Tatars (brown), Ottomans (green), Wallachians under Laiota (blue), Army of Dracula and Bathory (black).

Map 1, July 1476: Army of Stefan is assembled at Bîrlad with 30,000 peasants and 10,000 boyars and curteni. Meñli Giray crosses the Dniester, pillages Orhei, crosses the prut and pillages Stefanesti (now Botosani county). Stefan allows the peasants to follow Giray and the armies meet near a forest, at Siret. The Tatar army flees across the Dniester, but few escape. The two armies were equal in size (30,000 each), so make sure the numbers correspond with the size of the two armies. --Candide, or Optimism 14:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

that's not much info. I tried to make a map based only on them, but i can't guarantee it's realistic. (Anyway, this isn't the final version of the map, if you decide it could help you, i'll make it nattier - i.e. lower the font size in country names) Anonimu 16:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That's all the info I have on this event, taken from Iorga's book about Stephen. The map looks good. The only thing you could add is the Moldavians pursuing the Tatars over the Dnister, but not too far away. --Candide, or Optimism 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, you should include Iasi, Chilia, and Cetatea Alba, because they're all involved in this conflict. I'll get back to you soon with the second scenario. --Candide, or Optimism 20:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello? --Candide, or Optimism 18:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
draw it yourselfAnonimu 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you could've told me this from the beginning. It would've been easier for both of us. --Candide, or Optimism 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] offside

http://p083.ezboard.com/fbalkansfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=1575.topic&start=41&stop=57 --Candide, or Optimism 07:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vlachs

What do you know about Vlachs of Serbia, Vlachs? PANON is deleting any relation to romanian language. --Andrei George 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonimu, where are you? --218.126.98.124 13:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cand te intorci pe forum? Nu mai am cu cine sa ma cert. :( --Candide, or Optimism 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cand n'o sa mai am ban pe user si pe IP, desigur. Anonimu 14:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nu mai ai. Torna frate! --Candide, or Optimism 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parada

I-ai zis-o bine lui Ronline! Ce zici şi de argumentul meu, chiar sub ăla al tău?Biruitorul 11:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farul-Galati 0-1

Ati mancat bataie. :))) --Candide, or Optimism 17:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC) ma doare'n p...

[edit] Civility

If you continue with the anti-homosexual, anti-immigrant, offensive remarks I will be forced to take action. I would encourage you to read the guidelines on civility. Wikipedia is not the place for homophobia and racism. - FrancisTyers 13:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not anti-immigrant or racist. Just against homosexuality. Ain't free speech allowed here? It's not like I edit some article to impose my POV Anonimu 13:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with Anonimu: he has the right to say that he is against homo-sexuality; and he has the right to say that he thinks it is wrong. He is also allowed to be anti-immigrant, as long as it's not racism. Americans are allowed to say that they don't want more Mexicans to pass their border, don't they? --Candide, or Optimism 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as racist: "si combaterea imigratiei asiatice si africane". You don't mention you want to stop immigration, you mention you want to stop immigration of asians and africans. As I said, please read the guidelines at WP:CIVIL. Calling groups of human beings "anti-umana, anti-naturala" is not civil. - FrancisTyers 15:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And to clarify, to say that you are opposed to homosexuality is fine, to brand it "anti-human" is not. Please be more careful in your choice of words in future. - FrancisTyers 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even say i want to stop immigration. I mentioned only africans and asians because i thought no european or american so poor that he couldn't raise a child would come to Romania. Simply, my policy would apply more to these categories of immigrants. How should i call a mental condition that could affect the human species on the long term? Anonimu 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dahn

Ar trebui sa vezi si articolul Transylvania.--222.109.87.130 07:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

You're aware that you broke the 3RR, right? —Khoikhoi 10:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

abakharev 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vino la pagina de discutii Transnistria

În 17 septembrie va fi referendum în Transnistria legat de independenţa regiunii. Cu această ocazie probabil multă lume va căuta pe Wikipedia informaţii despre Transnistria. Am încercat să adaug în articol nişte informaţii legate de acest referendum, anume:

- faptul că mai multe organizaţii antiseparatiste au lansat un apel la boicotare, considerînd referendumul "farsă"

- faptul că din 46 de ţări membre ale Consiliului Europei, 45 sînt împotriva recunoaşterii referendumului, numai RUsia are altă părere

- faptul că datele Comisiei Electorale Centrale din Tiraspol au fost schimbate în mod ciudat, anume numărul total de alegători s-a micşorat cu 7% faţă de 2005, ceea ce ridică suspiciuni asupra unei încercări de creştere artificială a prezenţei la vot prin raportarea unui număr mai mic de alegători înregistraţi.

Totdeauna am dat lincurile care dovedesc cele scrise de mine, n-am născocit nimic din burtă.

Userul Willian Mauco, care pare fan Tiraspol, mereu mi-a şters adăugirile. (vezi istoria paginii)

Puteţi vedea la pagina de discuţii Transnistria ce argumente a adus. Anume: ăia care cer boicotarea referendumului din Transnistria sînt foşti KGB-işti, că aşa zice o organizaţie rusească de analiză (a dat un linc pentru asta). Întîi a spus că respectivii nici nu sînt din Transnistria, ci doar din Basarabia, dar i-am dovedit că unii dintre semnatarii apelului la boicot sînt transnistreni. Am fost împăciuitor, i-am zis că n-are decît să adauge părerea organizaţiei ruseşti că antiseparatiştii sînt foşti KGBişti, că n-are decît să-i considere pe cei care vor boicotarea referendumului drept băieţi răi, dar faptul în sine, că s-a cerut boicotarea referendumului, trebuie menţionat. Degeaba, mereu mi s-au şters adăugirile - pentru celelalte 2 fapte nici n-a adus argumente.

A mai fost o adăugire care a şters-o, despre arestarea a 4 persoane din Transnistria care sînt împotriva separatismului (între timp li s-a dat drumul). În cazul ăsta am renunţat eu să mai insist pentru includerea informaţiei în articol (deşi informaţia e incontestabilă), tocmai fiindcă n-am vrut să mă cert prea mult.

În perioada asta cînd agenţiile de ştiri vor menţiona referendumul de la Tiraspol, se va citi articolul Transnistria în Wikipedia poate mai mult decît într-un an întreg. De aia acum e nevoie să existe în articol informaţii despre contestarea corectitudinii referendumului. Nu cer să se menţioneze ca adevăr absolut faptul că referendumul e incorect, ci doar că există unii (OSCE, 45 din 46 ţări ale Consiliului Europei, unele organizaţii din zonă şi din Basarabia) care consideră asta. Vă cer de aceea sprijinul ca să interveniţi pe pagina de discuţii Transnistria pentru a susţine rămînerea informaţiei în pagină şi să repuneţi informaţia atunci cînd Mauco o şterge (eu nu pot să verific chiar 24 de ore din 24). Evitaţi atacurile suburbane, păstraţi ton civilizat. mulţumesc.

Who is William Mauco Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) http://0.bypass-filter.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZGx1Y2FzLmJsb2dzcG90LmNvbS8yMDA2LzA4L2dvdGNoYS0yLmh0bWw%3D

Edward Lucas wrote about Mauco: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 08:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonimu can help you mariusM.

[edit] Votează contra ştergerii articolului Heaven of Transnistria

Împreună cu EvilAlex (un tip din Tighina - Transnistria) am creat un articol despre propaganda separatistă a Tiraspolului Heaven of Transnistria. I s-a cerut ştergerea. Te rog ajută-ne să păstrăm articolul, votînd contra ştergerii[2]. Destul s-a şters din articolul principal Transnistria, Wikipedia e plină de propagandă a Tiraspolului, să avem măcar un articol care explică această propagandă--MariusM 18:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So do you guys still use the Ceauşescu textbooks? I have a friend who is a Peace Corps volunteer in a village an hour north of Bucharest and she said the general conception seems to be the place to learn Romanian history is not in Romania. Germany and France collaborated and made a common historical textbook for certain school classes, do you think Romania could ever collaborate on one with Hungary?

[edit] Image:Battlrasb.png

Would it be possible to change this image to make colors of the two sides more distinct to make the map more readable to colorblind people? Perhaps red and blue, or solid black and white with black outline. Hirudo 15:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I made these two versions. What should i use in the article (right/left one)? (i uploaded it with no licence to make sure it will be deleted). Anonimu 19:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You are about to violate Wikipedia:3RR on Dobruja, refrain from further reverts or you might be blocked.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Ferentari riot

When you tag for POV, you are supposed to leave an explanation on the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Just out of curiosity, could you please name the Romanian(s) for whom adminship has been detrimental? Biruitorul 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceausescu page

"are you jealous that we were and even nowadays we are more wealthy than you?..."

hehe, dude before you talk know who you're talking to.. fist of all, i live in the united states, and second, i'm not what you might call "poor"..

What I wrote at Ceauşescu family is contained in the linked article. What further citation are you looking for? Biruitorul 05:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

You will be more effective on Wikipedia if you avoid personal attacks and try to be more WP:CIVIL. --Macrakis 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just worried. I thought there was an outbreak of a new epidemic of somethng causing blindness among russians...Anonimu

[edit] Revert war on History of Romania since 1989

Please see my comments on the talk page and stop reverting. If you want citations, pick some from there. There aren't any in English, so I'm not going to include them on the page. gcbirzantalk

I have reported you for violating the WP:3RR. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR gcbirzantalk 23:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

chiar daca tehnic nu am "violat"'o... mi se rupe Anonimu 08:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[3] made on December 22, 2006 to History of Romania since 1989

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 10:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Canal

What, exactly, is it you're looking for? He's a reliable historian! And I am impartial. Biruitorul 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hi

Well you also made 3 changes. but feel free to respond on the talk page.


[edit] 3RR violation on Romania

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Romania. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Kamenaua

learn to count man....Anonimu 18:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

Would you please be so kind as to indicate which are the "weasel words" you are referring to. I have not found any weasel word in the article. Therefore I consider that your comment is unfair and until explained totally unsubstantiated. You ask for explanations on the statements made in the article. The same applies to your statements.

Afil 17:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Cutezator fiu al poporului.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cutezator fiu al poporului.ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karvuna Principality

The Bulgarian lands during the reign of Ivan Alexander
The Bulgarian lands during the reign of Ivan Alexander[1]

Greetings. I want to settle this dispute as quick as possible because there is no point of edit war. I was very surprised when I first read this article. I got the impression that it was all but of romanian origine, which is not true.

1.These lands have always been in the territory of the Bulgarian Empire since its very creation. When the principality emerged from Bulgaria in the mid 14th century it was not because its population was not Bulgarian but because of the feudalism which was now inluenced the previously centralised Balkan states (Bulgaria, Byzantium, Serbia). Karvuna was not the only one Bulgarian area which dropped from the central power, there were also Vidin Tsardom and various principalities in Macedonia which emerged from the collapsed Serbian empire. It is obvious that the population there was almost completely Slavic. See Historical maps of medieval Bulgaria (in Bulgarian).

Tehy were in the Bulgarian Empire only until 971 (if you ignore the numerous byzantine interventions on the danube during that period.. i could list them if you want). The next mention of Bulgarian in Dobruja is from Ivan Asenn II (1230's) and then agian no info until the byzantine sources of the 1320s. So no proof that Balik (the founder of the state) was ever a vasal of Bulgaria. Obvious to whom.... after 970 numerous people settled in Dobruja: Petchenegs, Cumans, Tatars and even Turks.(from what i know foreign -not BG, not RO - historians, even some Romanian ones, agree the rulers had a turkic origin, cumans and proto-gagauzes being the main candidates). That is a nationalistic site, and those maps are evidently amateurish.. i could draw similar maps with an oversized wallachiaAnonimu 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

2.The very names Dobrotitsa, Ivanco, Theodor are Bulgarian =>they were obviously Bulgarian feudal lords who took the opportunity to gain de facto independence from the weak central power. There were more than 60 de facto independent states in the Balkans in the late 14th century, you can't say that there were also 60 peoples, yes?

"Obviously" Bulgarian? Many Wallachian rulers had names of Slavic origin (e.g. Mircea I of Wallachia, Radu I of Wallachia) - that doesn't mean automatically they were Bulgarian, does it? Ivanko of Bulgaria, according to Niketas Choniates, was of Vlach origin. And Theodor is a name of Greek origin, not necessarily Bulgarian. Also bear in mind that the ethnicity was of minor importance during the Middle Ages (in comparison to the religion). It is exaggerated to talk of "ethnically pure" Bulgarian or Wallachian lands. Mentatus 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, in the treaty with Genova(1387), the ruler is called "Juanchus", not Ivanko.Anonimu 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

3.In 19th century there were more than 100,000 Bulgarians in Northern Dobrudzha alone, these lands were given to romania not because its population was vlach or romanian but because Romania needed an outled to a sea and took this region as a compensation when the Russians seized Besarabia. --Gligan 15:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you please give us a reliable NPOV source for the 100,000 Bulgarians in Northern Dobruja in the 19th century? And where did you get that the Romanians or Vlachs were a minority in Dobruja from? Mentatus 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Byzantines made little difference between Bulgarians and Vlachs. In fact they rarely refer to the Bulgarians as "Bulgarians", they usually used Moesians, Vlachs, Barbarians, Slavs but this does not mean that the Bulgarians are Moesians or Vlachs or Barbarians. I have never written that Dobrudzha was ethnically pure. There were of course Vlachs, Tatar, Cumans, Byzantines, but they were fewer than the Bulgarians. --Gligan 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat myself: would you please give us a reliable NPOV source for your statement? Mentatus 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find reliable sourses about the poppulation od Dobrudzha in the 19th century. We should find the ethnic structure when the territory was Turk before 1878 because both romanian and Bulgarian sourses would be irreliabe. Neighter would I believe a romanian sourse, nor would you believe a Bulgarian one I suppose. I think that when the the region became Bulgarian and romanian both governments forced some of the Vlachs and Bulgarians respectively to write their ethnicity as the governments wanted to, While for the turk it didn't matter whether the Christian population there considerred itself Bulgarian or Vlach (they were simply infidels for them) so the ethnic structure of that period would be most reliable. So you can also search for this, not only me. And I also may ask you what your reliable sourse is. --Gligan 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the origin of the source (either Romanian or Bulgarian or Klingon) is irrelevant to me, as long as it is accepted as reliable by the majority of historians and it is based on facts, not on propaganda of any kind. So don't make any assumptions on my behalf. Second of all, it was you who made a statement, not me ("100,000 Bulgarians in Northern Dobruja in the 19th century" and that the "Vlachs, Tatar, Cumans, Byzantines [..] were fewer than the Bulgarians"), and I assume that when you make a statement you know what you're talking about. Asking me for sources in return is a puerile tactic - I haven't stated the contrary, I was just wondering where did you get all that from and whether you can put the money where your mouth is. Mentatus 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The ethnic composition of Dobrudja in 1850 (during thurkish rule): 30% turk, 23% romanian, 14% bulgarian... you can find the full data taken from Encyclopedia of Islam (available also online, not free of course) at Talk:Dobruja... and unless every family had 50 members, that 100,000 you gave is impossible... Even more impossible considering the report of an italian diplomat ( La Bulgaria ed il porto di Varna. Cenni descrittivi e statistici. Rapporto del R. vice-console sig. avv. Perrod in data 20 settembre 1864) saying that bulgarians settled in Eastern Bulgaria only in the previous 40 years or Bulgarian historian L. Miletich that wrote in 1902 (Старото българско население в северо-източна България) that most bulgarians came in northern Dobruja in the previous century.Anonimu 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not remember the exact name of the book in which I read this data, it may have been a nationalistic one (now I am in Sofia and the library I read this in in Plovdiv, so it would take time before I check). I would accept this census from 1850 BUT I will point out that this does not include southern Dobrudzha where the population was composed mainly of Bulgarians and Turks. If this is included both the Bulgarians and romanians would be approximately equal. Now we do not claim northern Dobrudzha, so this is not so important.

No, it includes all dobruja. quote from EncIslam "At this date in the kadas of Tulca, Isakca, Macin, Hirsova, Babadagh, Kostendje, Mangalya, Pazardjik [ Dobrich, n.n], Balcik and Silistre were 4800 Turkish, 3656 Romanian, 2225 Tatar, 2214 Bulgarian"... so it includes all dobrich oblast and at least half of the silistra oblast (which has a strong population even today)Anonimu 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The main question here is the principality of Karvuna. Of course there were no population census in the Middle ages and I cannot prove that for instance the population consisted of 76,34% Bulgarians, 12,98% Vlachs and so on. So you may speculate that the population included huns, goths; you may say that half of the population of the Bulgarian Empire was Vlach, you may say "prove me wrong". How can I prove this?! How can you prove that the population of France was French not Frank or Celtic? But no one asks these questions: though the population in Europe was undoubtedly mixed in most of the continent, it is assumed that the population of what used to Bulgaria was mainly Bulgarian, the population of what was Wallachia used to be Vlach and so on. And as the region of Dobrudzha was always within Bulgaria, it makes sense that its majority was Bulgarian. If the Tatars were majority they would have joined the Golden horde, if it was Vlach it would have joined Wallachia, but the fact is that it always remained in Bulgaria and I have stated above the reasons why it split from the central power.

It's ludacrious to claim that a zone controled by an medieval Empire had the omonyme population... It's like we'd claim Eastern Bulgaria was mainly russian between 968 and 971, then mainly greek between 971 and the 1200s then again Bulgarian for some years, then Tatar...etc. Again it has not been always within Bulgaria... it was in 681-968, and the southern portion was Bulgaria also in 986-1000 and for some years in the 1200s... and if we go back in time, it was roman or byzantine between 46 AD and 681. In those times region didn't join empires, they were conquered by empires, so it's again irrelevant. Anonimu 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And finally, your edits for the Bulgarian noble Dobrotitsa, deleting the word Bulgarian everywhere is insulting for the dignity of the Bulgarian people. --Gligan 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If establishing historic truth insults the Bulgarian people, i'm afraid i must insult it...

The well-established historic truth says that Dobrotitsa was a Bulgarian and ruled over the Bulgarian Principality of Karvuna. Apparently the romanians are creating a new history. ...how smart of them... but the historical documents tell nothing about serious presence of Vlachs in Dobrudzha during the Middle Ages, and do not tell me that the Byzantines use "vlach" sometimes considerring some Bulgarian Emperors, because the same byzantines have called the moesians, cumans, huns, you name it. Thus the Byzantines wanted to humiliate in a way the Bulgarians. It is not an honorable action to speculate with history.

What well-established historians? Both Iorga and Inalcik are respected historians (btw, Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, a very authoritative source, calls Dobro "Walachian prince"). So, even if you could bring references, we still can't say it's Bulgarian... that wouldn't be NPOV because there's a dispute. Historic documents don't really mention bulgarian population in Dobrudja either... Ok, again that bulgarian nationalist myth... you're all vlachs man ;)) Anonimu 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that Zlatatski, Lalkov, Fine, Bozhilov are also respected historians, and also it would not be NPOV even if you bring me evidence that he was ?vlach???; and I rather think it is a romanian nationalistic myth, you simply try to persuade the other nations that Dobrudzha (and Transilvania) are rightfull in Romania today. I wonder what is the point to go on as nowadays no one claims them, I understand that there was such a necessity before WW2, but now...
Sorry, they're not respected enough to override Columbia Encylopedia... since there are contemporaneous documents that call him Bulgarian, your claim is also a Bulgarian nationalist myth.Anonimu 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be better for our nations to unite, we will be stronger and we will be all Bulgarians : ) : ) : ) --Gligan 09:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
as a banned user would say, Serbians and Bulgarians are just slavicized vlachs... Anonimu 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
When the Bulgarians existed there were no vlachs... --Gligan 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, they've come from outer space in the 10th century... Anonimu 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For example if I say that Vladislav I of Wallachia was a Bulgarian and ruled over Wallachia populated by Bulgarian and Vlachs as a vassal of the Bulgarian Emperor (the last one is true, see the article for Ivan Alexander, there is plenty of literature there) how can you prove me wrong!?

I can't. I doubt that Vladislav was a Bulgarian vassal. First, it had received feuds in Transylvania from the Hungarian king for his vassalage... but no feud from Ivan Alexander... Second, it minted it's own coin that imitated the Hungarian ones (as Dobrotici did)... very unusual for a vasal to have it's own coin.. Todor still hasn't answered me on Ivan Alexander's talk page.. he told me to ask a user who had left wiki (very unproffesional). Anonimu 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you can't. And would it be pleasant for you and the ronamian people to write in the article of Vladislav that he may be a Bulgarian and to have ruled over Bulgarians and Vlachs?? Is this not an insult for the romanian people, to speculate with history when you simply can't prove me wrong?! And there is a footnote after the sentence for the Bulgarian vassals --Gligan 09:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know.. anyway i have a stronger claim to the vlach origin of the assenids than yours about Vladislav. A footnote that mentions. A footnote that says exactly the opposite thing, as i proved on the talk page Anonimu 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between vlach and Cuman, and Asen and Peter perhaps have cuman origine. --Gligan 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
But French and Byzantines called them Vlachs because they didn't know to write "Bulgarian".. yeah, of course... Anonimu 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The byzantine document for the battle of Trayanovi Vrata says that Basil II's army was defeated by the Moesians, does it mean that Samuil and the Bulgarians are Moesians??? --Gligan 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What do I care about Moesians... were talking about Vlachs, which always had a specific ethnic meaning...Anonimu 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And as far as the above statement is concerned, I think you know what I mean but you still speculate. You know very well that I mean the lands which were continuosly ruled by the Bulgarians or the french or the Serbs were inhabited mainly of the same ethnos respectively. Of course that central greece which was in the borders of our Empire for less than 100 years or the lands of eastern Hungary and Transilvania which we held for around 200 or Serbia (I do not mean present day serbia) could not have a majority of the population Bulgarians, but the regions we held for more than 600 years such as Dobrudzha or Northern Bulgaria... tell me how is this possible the population not to rebel if it is not Bulgarian?

Bulgaria was ruled by the Turks for 600 years... by your logic, modern Bulgarians must have come from space in 1908... BTW, very very few sources mentioning Doburdja during Bulgarian rule... this make it very hard to say if there was any rebellion...Anonimu 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The empire of the turks was too lagre for the to populate it almost completely by turks, while our Empire south of the Danube was small enough to be populated almost wholy of Bulgarians. --Gligan 09:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your small empire south of the Danube didn't generally include Dobrudja Anonimu 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Really?!?!?! And when did the romanians invented this!? I have placed maps above which show that Dobrudzha was always Bulgarian. --Gligan 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Show me any document pre-dating 19th century Bulgarian nationalism that mentions bulgarian rule in Dobruja after 1000. Man, I don't care about your nationalist imaginary maps.Anonimu 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I DO NOT care of YOUR nationalism. Firstly you can't quote me any document which shows that Dobrudzha was not Bulgarian, and secondly: IN 1300 THE BULGARIAN EMPEROR THEODOR SVETOSLAV KILLEd THE MAIN RIVAL FOR THE GOLDEN HORDE'S RULER, CHAKA. IN GRATITUTE THE PRESENT TATAR RULER CEDED BESARABIA, TO THE NORTH OF THE DANUBE DELTA TO BULGARIA. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE IF OUR BORDER WAS NOT THE DANUBE DELTA??? As you OBVIOUSLY have UNPRECEDENTAL knowledge of ALL contempoary documents on the topic, you should have heard that. --Gligan 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the typical nationalist vandal attitude. Man, how do you want me to give a reference that says something that didn't happen... it's like you'd ask me to source the fact that the current Bulgarian president isn't an African... That would be impossible since there was a documented continual tatar presence in northern Dobrudja between 1240s and 1350s... That's only another bulgarian nationalist fallacy...Anonimu 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Your view is nationalistic, not mine; what I stated above is mentioned in the contemporary Byzantine documents. And I could not understand what did not happen??? --Gligan 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What document? In what collection was it published?Anonimu 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I am very buzy in the moment but next week I will try to find some time and go to the National Library and I will find literature on the matter. --Gligan 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of romanian "historians" who speculate that the Bulgarians never ruled to the north of the Danube and call the Bulgarian findeing from the period of the Khans as some kind of local culture (I do not remember exactly the name of this "local culture"). It seems that the romanians have a good experience in speculating with history... Why don't you simply face the truth? --Gligan 08:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to comment, since we are talking about Dobrudja, not about the territories north of the DanubeAnonimu 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
... --Gligan 09:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Another fact: In 1366 Emperor Ivan Alexander refused to give conduct to the Byzantine Emperor Ioan V Paleologos. To force the Bulgarians to give him conduct, he orderred his relative Amadeo of Savoy to attack the Bulgarian coastal towns. In the same year Amadeo conquerred Pomotie, Nessebar, Emone and besieged Varna which he failed to seize. As a result Ivan Alexander let the Byzantines to go through Bulgaria. If these coastal towns were not Bulgarian but Vlach why should Amadeo attack innocent "Valch" principality, and why should Ivan Alexander take any care of this??? --Gligan 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Savoyard documents mention tratatives between the count and Dobrotici to get the right to pass through Dobrudja... Would a vassal receive emissaries of the enemies of his lord? Anonimu 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why the count attacked these towns in responce of actions made by the Emperor in Tarnovo??? Quite simple: he attacked Bulgarian towns. --Gligan 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably they had been occupied by the bulgarian tsar in the previous bulgaro-byzantine war ended in 1365 (since Dobrotici was a subject of the byzantine emperor)Anonimu
This is nonesense, the Bulgarians could not defeat the Turk mercenaries of the Byzantines and they have occupied nothing, and Varna which was besieged by Amadeo was in Dobrotitsa's lands. BTW have you read these documents which you are quoting? --Gligan 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Amadeo attacked and sunk some turkish ships... why would he do that to the allies of his ally? Hey, I'm not like you to believe any unsourced nationalist propaganda Anonimu 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The case with Ioan V Paleologos is documented in the byzantine chronicles, this attack on the Bulgarian coastal towns was the only reason for the conduct the Ioan V received. The siege of Varna on 25 October is also mentioned. I am not the person who will believe to romanian propaganda. I have the impression that you dare to claim the Maps I have written above are wrong; please find me maps of Bulgaria in 1250s, 1300-1321, 1341 on which Dobrudzha is not included in our borders, because it seems that your claim is unsoursed. Can you also provide me link to romanian maps of Medieval Bulgaria? --Gligan 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Did I dispute that? And those cities weren't quite Bulgarian.. they changed hands a dozen times only in the 13th and 14th centuries. All you maps are made by bulgarians (and most of them are taken from a bulgarian nationalist site). Of course i can't believe them... Romanian and generally non-Bulgarians don't make maps about Medieval Bulgaria. Anonimu 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I knew that, of course you can't find anything that fits the romanian propaganda; as non-Bulgarians do not make maps of Bulgaria you have no choice but to trust and respect the Bulgarian maps and the scientists who have devoted much time to make them with maximum accuracy. No matter what the site is, the maps are the same, these are also in all atlasses I have ever seen, and believe me I have seen hunderds. Now you are mocking and ridiculating serious Bulgarian historians and geographers; which I will take as an insult for The Bulgarian (and mine) dignity and honour. --Gligan 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

You are about to violate Wikipedia:3RR on Dobruja. Refrain from further reverts.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And you also almost violated it on Dobrotitsa about a day later. Please stop skirting 3RR. Doing that multiple times will get you blocked. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It's just a warning and nothing more. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bulgarian rule over the whole of Dobrudzha during the Middle Ages

You claim that after 1000 Bulgaria never ruled the whole of Dobrudzha any more. First see this non-Bulgarian maps [4], [5], [6]. It can be clearly observed that the Danube delta was our northern border. You did not believe me what I stated for Theodore Svetoslav and the Bulgarian rule over Besarabia in the early 14th cent. (see again what I wrote and your answers). As I said I found some time and went to the National Library for sourses and this is what I found:(1)Laiou, A. E. Constantinople and the Latins (Foreign Policy of Andronicus II, 1282-1328). Cambridge, Mass., 1972. (2)Б. Цветкова. Българо-византииски отношения при царуването на Теодор Светослав, ИСиффСУ, 3, 1948, 1-32 and several other books by Bulgarian authors which I have no time to write. It was written there that the Bulgarian rule over Besarabia continued during Toktu's heirs Uzbek and Dzhanibek and here are the sourses: (1)Brâtianu, G. I. Les Bulgares a Cetate Alba (Akkerman) an debut du XIV esiecle-Byz, 2, 1926, 153-168 (2)Recherches sur Vicina et Cetatea Alba. Bucarest, 1935, p.104 sq (3)Николов, П. Българи и татари през средните векове, 138-141. --Gligan 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at these maps: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] [h=125&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmedieval%2Bmap%2Bbulgaria%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dbg%26sa%3DN] Ohh, these are enough I think. You should agree that the area of Tulca was part of Bulgaria, why don't you simply accept this? Is it so hard? --Gligan 21:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... then the map you gave me means nothing, too... But the fact is that you have no documents to show that these lands were Byzantine in the period (681-1000, 1185-14th cent.); just this logically: after the battle of Ongala, the Bulgarians established capital Pliska to the south, how is this possible for the byzantines to hold the area of the lower Danube just to the north of the Bulgarian capital????, it is just impossible. So you must try very hard to find sourses for byzantine presence in that period, because these does not exist.
And about Vidin and Severin: Your countryman Menantus told me to feel free to write the Bulgarian name for romanian towns which used to be Bulgarian; Vidin was never in romania, so the romanian name has no place there. --Gligan 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign names

Hey, I think it's a bit silly... to Romanian articles we're usually adding old, actual names which are often very different phonologically from your variants. You're adding Bulgarian names written in Romanian to our articles (Vidin, Şabla, Caliacra)... this is stupid, everyone can check the rules of your script somewhere and transliterate Cyrillic into it. What I suggest: foreign names should be added only if they're special with something, not just dumb transliterations or adaptations, unless they've got anything to do with minorities. Todor→Bozhinov 10:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for reading a book about your cities in the Middle Ages. That's why it's best to make a redirect and only list the name in a relevant historical section. Also, to be precise, one needs to read a Romanian book written after 1919 and before 1940, not just before 1940.
Tulcha is just a phonetic rendition, but Harsovo is a pretty different thing, possibly related to Hors, and it's an old variant. Diiu is OK, it's pretty interesting and there's some limited Bulgarian-identifying Vlach-speaking population west of the city. I would suggest including it in the body just like the Hungarian Bodony. I'd recommend the same for obsolete Bulgarian names like Harsovo and Holavnik. Todor→Bozhinov 12:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion (see also Gligan's talk page): The rule for adding a name of a place/town/region in another language should be:

  • a significant minority lives or lived there
  • the place/town/region had OFFICIALLY that name

Of course, as a rule of thumb, all the edits should be referenced and verifiable. All the othequite differr names should go as exonyms to the corresponding articles (see for example List of European exonyms). Mentatus 12:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, Anonimu. When these towns were in the Bulgarian Empire, their official name was the same I have given. You are constantly provoking me and I have the feeling that you are trying to insult and mock me (with great success, I should say that if this is your aim you have achieved it). When I provide sourses you keep silence, and even when I provide them you do not accept them without reason. I give you facts, sourses, maps; you give me NOTHING. I went to the National Library to search references for you and you still show no respect toward my effords. It is very easy only to ignore without reason as you do it.
I want a sourse which shows that there used to be important vlach community in Vidin. --Gligan 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
German and Hungarian sources are seldom used for events of Bulgarian history, and Turkish sources have no relation to anything but the 14th-15th century, which is the very end of our empire. Romanian was used for a relatively short period in this part of Dobruja, so only publications between 1918 and 1940 would use it, and not all of them at all.
Hǎrsovo (if you'd like that transliteration) is a different name, it's Slavic (perhaps Hors + -ovo). The modern Bulgarian one is Hǎršova, which is phonetically the same as the current Romanian rendition of the older Slavic name.
As for Mentatus' suggestions, the main flaws are what is considered official and what is considered a significant minority. Todor→Bozhinov 13:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant the following by "official historical name":
  • the place belonged to the respective state/country whose language is used for the rendition of the foreign name, and
  • the place was then named as such in an official document/chronic by that state/country (i.e. an official document when that place belonged to the respective state). See for example Istanbul, where also the Greek Κωνσταντινούπολη is mentioned.
As for the significant minority, I think we can define it as minimum 10-20% of the population.
I know the rules are not perfect, but maybe we can stop this stupid edit war. What do you guys think? Mentatus 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's stupid. But what are going to do? I suggest that we write the Bulgarian for Severin, Orsova, Turnu Magurele, Braila because they were used in the Middle Ages, leave the Romanian for Kaliakra, Tutrakan, Silistra, Balchik and stop removing them once and for all. What do you think about this? I will wait for your answers before I restore the Bulgarian names. --Gligan 14:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

To Anonimu: the personal name is associated either with the Slavic god Hors (Hǎrs in Bulgarian) or with the ethnographic group of the hǎrcoi (хърцои), the old Bulgarian population around the Danube in the northeast which Miletič talked about. In turn, hǎrcoi may be from Hǎrs,[15] from Romanian răţoi (as a derogative) or from a Bulgar (?) translation of Slavic poljani ("people of the field").[16].
To Mentatus: sounds OK to me, though the task would certainly be easier for you (there are plenty of documents from 1918-1940, but medieval sources are often scarce) :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
To Anonimu: Yes, you're right about the protochronism, that's what I meant by the rule "the place was then named as such in an official document/chronic by that state/country (i.e. an official document when that place belonged to the respective state)".
To Gligan and Todor: Well, I think the rules are pretty fair, bearing in mind that the purpose of inserting the historical name in an article should be adding more information about the history of the place, not to make irredentist claims (e.g. I don't think the Greeks - or at least the majority of the Greeks - claim Istanbul nowadays). I understand it's more difficult to find documents from the Middle Ages, but citing a source is a Wikipedia rule, I didn't make that one up :) Mentatus 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not difficult to find sources citing documents from the Middle Ages, it's just that less sources are preserved from the period and thus we know less names. But we ruled over a larger portion, so I guess that balances things :) BTW, any idea what Romanian cities Ruker and Dubovica (Dâmboviţa?) might be? Todor→Bozhinov 16:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of those names are just different renditions of names. Braşev/Braşov,Rajnov/Rojnov=Râşnov (note that ş+consonant is sometimes rendered j+consonant even today), Doboviţo/Doboviţo grad/Domboviţa=i don't really know, but according to my historical atlas there was a fortress of Dâmboviţa in the region, Brail/Brailov=Brăila, ro:Târgşor-a city that didn't survive to the modern era, Târgovişte, Giurgev=Giurgiu, Severin=Turnu Severin, Argeş=Curtea de Argeş (=the court of Argeş), Ruker/Rukor=ro:Rucăr, Sacuian=Săcuieni-a dissapeared town&county, Gergicha=ro:Gherghiţa, a medieval town, now a village. Buzjia=Buzău, Flocia=Oraşul de Floci(=town of Floci), Prahova. The only different name is Dâlgopol=Câmpulung(also mentioned as Longo Campo). As youu see, none fo those names are really different.Anonimu 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the Romanian names are also just renditions. There are German, Polish, Russian, Ukraine names for towns in Romania which have never been to those countries, so I will add the Bulgarian names for the towns which were in Bulgaria, and as I see at least three of us have agreed to this. --Gligan 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think so. Around 7-9 Medieval Bulgarian documents have survived, excluding those related fully to the Church. By your logic I cannot give the Bulgarian names even to our towns not to mention the towns in Greece and Turkey which have their Bulgarian names written. As archaic Bulgarian names such as Холъвник exist it is obvious that these towns were called like this when they used to be Bulgarian. Nowadays no one in Bulgaria refer to Turnu Magurele as Holavnik or to Drobeta-Turnu Severin as Severin, so these names were only used in the past when these towns were Bulgarian.
I will repeat again, your logic is not not reliable. If I follow it, it would seem that as there are no contemporary document in which is written that Lovech or Silistra or Pernik was within Bulgaria, consequently you may say that these were not in Bulgaria, which is ridiculous.
You know very well that in the Middle Ages no one called Turnu Magurele for instance with its contemporary name, how did they called it then???
I want us to do simply this: vote "yes" or "no" whether we should write the Bulgarian names. I say yes. --Gligan 13:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Early and late Middle Age Bulgarian names did not change. Vidin was always calles Bdin, Silistra-Drastar, Sofia-Sredets and so on. In the history section section of all these towns (I mean Severin, Orsovo, Turnu Magurele) is written that they existed since Roman times, so they existed in the Middle Ages too. And when thay were Bulgarian it is not possible that they were called Turnu, Drobeta or anything like this. How do you imagine that the Bulgarians would have created their names later, after their rule has vanished?? That makes no sense.

Also their origin. Severin may have come from the Bulgarian Sever which means North, Orşava originates from Orsovo and -ovo is typical Slavic sufix.

Please wait Todor and Mentatus to write their opinion. Write in your page, so that they would easily follow our thoughts. --Gligan 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that an important settlement existent in ancient times doesn't necesarily imply a continous inhabitations. The only thing that could certify this would be the continuity of the placename(Rome,Athens, London, even Paris), but this is not the case. SO uless they're mentioned in Bulgarian documents, there's no proof they've existed in that period. You don't need a rule over a city to have a different name for it. There are numerous examples of exonyms that have nothing to do with a foreign rule. Severin may also come from the roman emperor Severus, while "ova" means field in Turkish, and that would make perfect sense considering the geography of the place.Anonimu 14:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And about Vidin: you are the nationalst vandal and I will report you as a vandal if you continue. My computer could not open yours sourse, so you must present it to me in other way. And I saw the cencus of 1910 where it is written that the pop. of Vidin was around 17,000, while the data you wrote me for a similar year was 1500 which is smaller that the 10%-20% which Mentatus wrote above. --Gligan 14:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
here's the source from google cache . The city was the centre of the bulgarian timok vlachs, so the name historically used by them has the right to be there.Anonimu 14:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not know Ronamian but I think that for 1940 it was written 40,000 Romanians in the Vidin district, not in the town, and I think that the Vlchs mainly populated the villages. Also I could not find that this sourse cites the Bulgarian census for thses years. I will go to the National Library again and will try to find the census data from the period 1900-1940.
I would also like to tell you that there have been significant Bulgarian minorities in Bucharest, Braila and other Romanian towns, whose Bulgarian names I cannot see. --Gligan 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but Bulgarian names for Bucharest and Braila are just cyrillic rendition for the Romanian names... while "Vidin" and "Diiu" are very different. Moreover, while the vlach population in Vidin is autochtonous, the ones in Bucharest and Braila were people who had run from Ottoman occupied Bulgaria.Anonimu 15:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
First: you cannot prove that these communities were not indigenous, second: they existed, third: The romanian names for Balchic and others are also just renditions to the Bulgarian names. --Gligan 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
But Balcic was Romanian in 1913-1916 and 1919-1940, and there are documents to prove that the town existed in that period and that the Romanian name used for it was "Balcic", so it fulfills the first criterium.Anonimu 18:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point your attention in this direction: there are the Polish and German names for Orsovo, without this town ever being populated or conquerred by these nations. Why don't you accept the Bulgarian???

Orsova had an important German population when it was part of the Austrian Empire. As for Polish.. i don't know.. i might have Polish roots, so maybe that's why i didnt try to remove them...Anonimu 15:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
But ufortunatelly YOUR personal attitute shall not have any role in the Wikipedia, this proves that you act as you think and that you do not listen to others' opinion.
So what? Anonimu 18:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why there are the Romanian names for Bekescsaba, Debrecen, Szeged??? These were never populated or conquerred by Romanians. --Gligan 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Romania (on his own) has occupied all Hungary east of the Danube and an important chunk of the west-Danubian Hungary in 1919, so they were "conquerred by Romanians". And those cities also had important romanian coumnities.Anonimu 15:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Bulgaria have occupied Bucharest, the whole of Dobrudzha and many other romanian towns in the First World War, if I am to follow this logic, I will add the Bulgarian names for them. --Gligan 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but, unlike Romania who administered all the occupied hungarian territory on her own, Bulgaria administered only Dobruja (and we do have Bulgarian names for most cities in that region).Anonimu 18:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thus you leave me an impression that you hate Bulgaria because your attitute towards the other names are ent.

I want answere for these, please. --Gligan 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gligan and Mentatus. It seems to me that you are being rather one-sided in your push to add Romanian names. These really don't add any value to the article, but do provide a stumbling block to a smooth read. Madman 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
so?Anonimu 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] harta

Buna, ** ************* ** **** * ***** ******* ******** ****** ** ***** As vrea sa *** * ***** ** **ti***** ** ** ** **s*u*g**** ******** ** **** ***p**** **** ***** **** ***** ** **** ** ****ul *** ****** *** **** ** ****** **** **a* --Thus Spake Anittas 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Show me the exact quote from the report. Khoikhoi 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but it doesn't say that the Romanians "attacked and injured the soldiers". Perahps it could be re-worded somehow. Khoikhoi 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moldovans

Sal, vad ca ai schimbat situl, normal. Doar am vrut sa fac un statement, finca vad ca nu prea mai se discuta despre tema asta. In optica mea nu prea vad o diferenta mare intre moldovenii din moldova si cei din RM si cred ca e o mare greseala ca Wikipedia a lasat sa faca acest articol. E un articol foarte subiectiv. Moldovenii fac totii parte din graiul romanesc, deci vreau sa vad foarte clar ce e diferenta si asta nu vad in acest articol, calitativ slab de tot. Cred ca e un lucru foarte prost sa te lasi influentat de un regim anti-romanesc si pro-sovietic. In fine, inca n-am scapat de romanofobie, asta e.

[edit] Re

Cum adica, ce limba sa fie?

Normal ca am auzit de recensamantul din Moldova, dar tre' sa iei urmatorul lucru in calcul, cat de obiectiv a fost acel recensamant si trebuie sa ne lasam influentat de o opinie personala? Daca eu vreau sa ma consider Italian, zic ca sunt Italian, dar ce argumente (ma refer la argumente ethologice) am? Asta nu inteleg nici la Moldoveni, ptr a fi un popor separat tre' sa ai o identitate diferita si eu cred ca asta nu exista. Chiar daca te uiti la intelectualitatea moldoveneasca, ea zice in majoritate ca moldovenii fac parte din graiul romanesc. Deci principalele probleme care le am cu acest articol sunt ca nu vad diferenta intre moldovenii din moldova si cei din RM si a doua e ca nu cred in obiectivitatea recensamuntului moldovean. Mai ales daca vezi ca in unele familii au fost registrati romani si moldoveni.

E absurd!

ps. poate era in olandeza, eu m-am nascut in olanda.. doar parintii sunt romani..

[edit] Elena Ceauşescu

Please don't rv the page. I work at the Cerimonial Office of Bologna University and in our archive are not documentation on honorary degree confered to Elena Ceausescu. Superfeccia 11:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

I'm trying to get my side - the side of goodness and truth - to win, so I don't invite the forces of darkness to give their Satanic opinions. Biruitorul 20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Russia — the Russia of Alexander Nevsky, of Dostoyevsky, of Solzhenitsyn, of Saint John of Kronstadt, of Tsar Nicholas, of Andrei Sakharov — Russia ≠ the USSR! In my view, any self-respecting Russian is a strident anti-Soviet, anti-Communist. It is possible - eminently possible - to love the Russian people and loathe the USSR with all one's heart, at the same time; after all, the Great Russian people were the biggest victims of communism (except perhaps the Chinese people). Biruitorul 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
First, let me note that Romania had good reason to take the Cadrilater: it was Romanian territory, and Bulgaria had just been defeated. Furthermore, there were no Soviets in Romania in June 1940 either, so your argument makes little sense?
No, the Orthodox Russia that worhsipped God and didn't set up Gulags where tens of millions perished. And anyway, since when is Sakharov an absolutist? Or Solzhenitsyn? Or Galina Starovoitova? Or Saint Andrei Rublev? Or Saint Maria Skobtsova? Even Tsar Nicholas was a constitutional monarch for most of his reign. You just can't compare the two Russias. One is good, the other (Soviet) is evil. Biruitorul 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, and one other point: I'd say Stalin was quite absolutist himself, wouldn't you? The Holodomor was quite an exploitation, wasn't it? The point is: why can't you say, "Yes, I'm a communist, but I admit that much of what was done in Russia between 1917 and 1991 in the name of communism was pure evil, and especially between 1929 and 1953'? If Palmiro Togliatti could do it, if, for goodness' sake, Nikita Khrushchev, the Butcher of the Ukraine, could do something like it, then why can't you? A régime that kills millions of people is only worthy of condemnation. Was the Tsarist government perfect? No. Was Yeltsin the ideal ruler? Far from it. But at least they have far less blood on their hands than Russia's Soviet dictators. Biruitorul 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A backhanded compliment, but I'll take it nonetheless, coming as it does from a Red. Thank you. Biruitorul 20:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But I just noticed your justification of mass murder, so I see you're still up to your old sophistry. Again, if the Greensboro massacre killed three people, then surely F.A. is also a massacre, because at least some of the dead were innocent (like the children, though I'd say they were all innocent). Anyway, as soon as an admin sees it, I'm sure it'll be moved. Biruitorul 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't know who Volodea was. But anyway, it is just sophistry. 200 killed. Defenceless. Backed by historiography. What else do we need to know? Biruitorul 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
First, even if you're being shot at, you can come up with a vague estimate. Second, if 3 is a massacre, then 20, 50, certainly over 100 is. Third, that border is illegitimate and the Reds had no business being there. Biruitorul 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
True, but 200 bears some relation to reality. I doubt the number was 2 or 3. After the massacre, people did have some idea what family members were missing, etc. No, killing is not justified, especially the killing of unarmed civilians. See the Bible and the Geneva Conventions. Herţa is still 93% Romanian, Cernăuţi, Storojineţ and Hotin are thoroughly Romanian cities, Ştefan cel Mare, Eminescu, etc. Biruitorul 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
These are Bolshevist lies. And even 50 is a massacre. Biruitorul 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It was atrocious. It was cruel. And it's a Bolshevist lie to detract from the heroism of Antonescu - a man voted 6th greatest Romanian ever, and who would have come in 1st had not a massive propaganda and fraud campaign kept that honour from him (though, in the interests of full disclosure, I voted for Ştefan). Biruitorul 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not a Holocaust denier, so please don't launch false accusations against me. Yes, he tried to protect Jews, and saved hundreds of thousands of them. It was motivated. Shooting is motivated. It was atrocious. Killing 200 people is an atrocity. It was cruel. Mass murder is cruel. Biruitorul 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that proves he "ordered the killing of hundreds of thousand of jews"? Those were revenge killings, but he also saved many Jews, especially in the Regat. No, they had no right to shoot. They were agents of atheistic Bolshevism. Even if it's 100, even 50, it's still a massacre. Perhaps, but that doesn't detract from the horror that happened at F.A. Biruitorul 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He wanted to set an example. It was wrong for him to have issued that order, but that doesn't necessarily make him a Holocaust perpetrator. Anyway, a true Holocaust perpetrator would not have spared hundreds of thousands (not "some") of Regat and other Jews. As he said during his trial, "Am fost prezentat ca dictator. Ştim că aceştia extermină pe adversarii lor. Eu pe cine am exterminat?... Nici un evreu care a fugit din Transnistria şi apoi a fost judecat in ţară nu a fost executat." No, war is only legitimate if it is in defence of Orthodoxy, not to spread Bolshevism, so they had no such right. And yes, I know very well that they were Bolshevik atheists. No, the killing of 200 people is in no way a "figurative" massacre. It's very real. Biruitorul 18:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not a Holocaust denier - are the Romanian people also Holocaust deniers, given how many voted him as one of the greatest Romanians? Not every Jew killed in WWII in Europe was a victim of the Holocaust. They were victims, but not necessarily Holocaust victims. Holocaust perpetrators don't set up theatres for Jews, and they don't protect them by the hundreds of thousands either. Maybe they did, but Islam, like all religions other than Orthodoxy, is a false religion. I am not an Iron Guard member either. I am the Knower of All Things. Biruitorul 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Care to cite? I can't prove I'm not one, but I can say I'm not one, and I do say that. No, maybe because they realised he had done a great service to Romania by taking power after the disaster of 1940 and doing his best to reverse that. Was he a perfect man? No, and he shouldn't have killed the Jews he did. But he still accomplished a lot of good. That's your definition. The theatre was set up by the Iron Guard but only became operational under Antonescu. It's difficult to determine precisely who was and was not responsible, and where the boundaries of the Holocaust begin or end. These are debatable matters - see Paul Goma. I will insult Islam, because Islam as a religion is a false doctrine, as are all non-Orthodox ones. I have nothing against Muslims as individuals. I certainly have nothing against Russians, who (along with the Chinese) were the greatest victims of Communism for 74 years. The Hindus come next. You are guilty of blasphemy: "Eu sunt calea, adevărul şi viaţa" (Ioan 14:6). Biruitorul 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise you lack credibility. I don't speak like one. Millions of Jews were killed in Europe in WWII. He at least tried to regain Romania's honour; she (and, by implication, the Church) had lost huge chunks of territory without a fight, and that was unacceptable. Paul Goma is a hero in the fight against Ceauşism. If someone called Orthodoxy false, I would engage him in debate and convince him that it is the truth (unlike some Muslims). I don't recall having insulted Russians; in any case, let it be clear: I love the Great Russian people, the people of Orthodoxy, of Tsarism, with all my heart. No, but you have claimed to be the Truth. Biruitorul 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. Ever heard of World War I? He also sat in Bucharest and did so, but yes, people were needed abroad to expose the evil of Ceauşism, to let the world know what was happening. Care to cite my having insulted them? And even if I did, it was unintentional. I don't really love those things - remember, I'm an anarcho-capitalist at my core. Something new? Integralism. And you still (apparently) blaspheme. Biruitorul 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I know how I talk - I don't talk like one, I'm not one, period. Bukovina and Bessarabia voted to unite with Romania in perpetuity. Goma, Lovinescu, Ierunca - they did a lot. Communists - not Russians - are the forces of darkness. There was some anarcho-capitalism going on too - see Leo Tolstoy. Wikipedia does not create reality; Integralism is not Fascism. You claim to be the Truth, but Someone else is. Biruitorul 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not: as I said in this discussion: "Millions of Jews were killed in Europe in WWII". The other nations were a minority; the majority rules. They spoke out on RFE. Here's what you said: "Don't you think you should invite some Russians too (as Russia received the Soviet Union's seat in the UN) ? They could present the Soviet POV." My answer: Russians who present the Soviet POV are not good Russians. My kind of Russians are Tsar Nicholas, Solzhenitsyn, Saint John of Kronstadt, etc. Just because something is in Wikipedia does not make it true; a template suggesting more than a passing link between Integralism and Fascism does not strengthen that link. You are neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost. Biruitorul 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi Anonimu, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, KissL 09:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] careful...

my friend, you're beginning to tread on some thin ice. You have called Biruitorul an ultranationalist, and now a holocaust denier, fundamentalist and perhaps even Iron Guard member. Remember that Wikipedia has a policy against that sort of thing, which I would advise you to respect. K. Lásztocska 19:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Prove"? I'd like to see you try. He is not a Holocaust denier, not an ultranationalist (he is a nationalist, but not of an especially destructive variety), and I seriously doubt he is a member of the Iron Guard. K. Lásztocska 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/o/User_talk%7EAnonimu_925b.html"