User talk:Bogdangiusca/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

• Archive 1 (May 2003 - September 2004)
• Archive 2 (October 2004 - November 2004)
• Archive 3 (December 2004 - January 2005)
• Archive 4 (February 2005 - March 2005)
• Archive 5 (April 2005 - July 2005)

Contents 1 Wal-Mart criticism split 2 American Old West at the US Collaboration 3 On the Greek disclaimer 3.1 Am I spamming you? 4 Separate articles for Ethnicons 5 H2G2 Romanian book cover 6 Substratum elements in Romanian onomastics 7 Pondweed 8 Nösnerland 9 Map of the Roman province of Illyricum 10 A poll, again? 10.1 IMHO... 11 Romanian location maps 12 Battles 13 Maramures 14 EB 2004 15 Macedonian template 15.1 You were right 16 Hargita Megye 17 Principality of Pindo 18 Zmeu 19 Colaborare. 20 Arbitration for User:Theathenae 21 Transnistria 22 Assemble your pens at the Battle of Vaslui! 23 Earthquake lights 24 Ajutor 25 Delta Dunarii photo 26 Chisinau 27 Moldova 28 WP:CP

[edit] Wal-Mart criticism split

I'm attempting to establish an solid consensus on whether or not to split Wal-Mart and Criticism of into separate articles. See the vote at Talk:Wal-Mart. Feco 20:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to enter the discussion when I'll have some more time. bogdan | ^Talk 21:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Old West at the US Collaboration

Some time ago, you supported the nomination of American Old West at the COTW. I have now renominated it at the new US Collaboration. If you are still interested, you can support the article with your vote there!--Fenice 08:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, I think it would be better if you stop spamming talk pages of users and articles (e.g. Thracians, Odrysian, Dacia, Illyria) with improvement drive announcements, because it is cluttering the watchlists. bogdan | ^Talk 21:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the Greek disclaimer

The disclaimer you were talking about is only a glimpse of how far would Greek nationalists go on Wikipedia. It is unbelievable to me, that the Wikipedia tolerates them (the nationalists), and they are given credit as serious Wikipedia contributors, when they step out with this type of "arguments":

And, when you already got a part in this conversation, explain why Greece runned away 300000 Macedonians and 100000 Bulgarians from Greece during the last 50 years, people that are still not alowed to enter Greece? Why did you burn my grandfathers house and shoot at him?

I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Because I didn't like his face. What are you gonna do about it?--Theathenae 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The same user (Theathenae) depicted Macedonians as "uncouth and underdeveloped Balkanians", and is not even hiding his (or her) resentment towards Macedonians. Remember that these users (Theathenae, Miskin etc) are extremely involved in editing and/or reverting the content of all Macedonia(n) related articles, despite their usually obvious lack of arguments.

The episode that saddens me most as a Macedonian, and as Wikipedian as well (I'm a bureaucrat on the Macedonian Wikipedia), is the Macedonian Slavs article which is effectively ignoring my nation's own self-identification term as well as the fact that all relevant international institutions, governments (except Greece, and Greek Cyprus), encyclopedias, major media outlets refer to them as "Macedonians". This is not a mere statement, because it is documented in these resources, which were mostly provided by a neutral admin of this Wikipedia - Zocky. If you don't know by now, there was a poll on this matter (whether Wikipedia should refer to them as "Macedonian Slavs" or "Macedonians"), which only proved that there are more Greeks than Macedonians on this encyclopedia. Actually, this ridicilous poll, I think, was the thing that trigerred the Wikipedia:Naming conflict proposals, made by ChrisO.

I would like to know your opininon about that. --FlavrSavr 23:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is clear:

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen – whereas the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective and is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy, as it would be an objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. However, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV. The moral of the story is: describe, not prescribe.

So, according to this policy, putting the disclaimer would be Greek POV. bogdan | ^Talk 08:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Am I spamming you?

I know. I used exactly the same quotation in the "Macedonian Slavs" debate (type Cabindans in the search) and it was interpreted by Theathenae as clichéd invocations of "human rights" and "NPOV" to support your nationalist arguments. By every NPOV parameter (as it can be observed in the Wikipedia:Naming conflict, as well as in its talk page), referring to Macedonians as "Macedonian Slavs" is a direct violation of this policy (NPOV).

I'm still waiting for the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy to be adopted as official (Do you anything about this?), but 2 months have passed until it has been proposed, and I don't see any progress. Meanwhile, because of tolerance to the Greek POV enforced by Theathenae, Miskin, Vergina and the likes, who are sometimes openly chauvinistic (I was recently referred to as a member of a "Slavic crowd" by Miskin), the English Wikipedia and its mirror sites remain the most important generators of the Macedonian Slavs term on the net - [1]. So it is not only a violation of the NPOV policy, it is effectively, as it was something completely normal, identifying and presenting my nation in a light which is considered insulting by most Macedonians. (Consider renaming modern Croatians "Croatian Slavs", or modern Swedes - "Swedish Vikings")

I'm also considering the option to move the current Macedonian Slavs article to Macedonians (people) (ChrisO's proposal), if the process of the adoption of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy as official is further delayed to unspecified date in the future. (However, I would be much happier if the admins of this Wikipedia do that.) I think that there are more than enough overdisscused arguments which indicate that the "Macedonian Slavs" term is a direct violation of the NPOV policy. However, in order not to make a crucial mistake (in the future), I must ask you openly: Would that be considered a vandalist act? And If so, why?

I would much appreciate your answer. --FlavrSavr 03:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have just heard about the terrible airplane tragedy that happened near Athens. (I rarely watch news). Guess this wasn't the right day to react against Greek nationalism. My condolence to the victims. --FlavrSavr 12:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the gods of Olympos did it to punish those Greeks, who are so wrong in this debate (not that I would know, being Romanian myself). Alex 12:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's innappropriate to make jokes on that issue, so please stop doing them. --FlavrSavr 13:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separate articles for Ethnicons

Hi Bogdan, I want to get your opinion on a proposal I have in mind, but I'm not sure if it will work in all cases. I was thinking we could create a separate article for the Dacians (Daci) in addition to Dacia, and I also want to do this with Paionia and the Paionians and maybe even Macedon and the Ancient Macedonians. What do you think? I did this for Mysia and Mysians, Caria and Carians, Moesi and Moesia, Liburnians and Liburnia, etc., and it seems to be better. The problem I see is that this will repeat some of the same information, but this can be tweaked and modified. Tony Starks 10:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. In some cases, a territory was not inhabited only by one people and sometimes with time, the borders of a territory change and the peoples also sometimes migrate. Probably some information would be repeated, but we can put it from a different perspective: for example, the expansion of Celts into Dacia can be regarded from a military POV in Dacia, while from a cultural POV in Daci. bogdan | ^Talk 11:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've set the plan in motion, but Dacians is on hold for me till I get more books (on which I want to frame the text a bit). But you or anyone else feel free to go ahead with it. Alex 03:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H2G2 Romanian book cover

Thanks for finding and adding this! Aside from German, my language abilities are a bit limited, so I was lucky to be able to use amazon.fr for the French book, and proxis.be for the Dutch one. There are a couple of collectors who have kept translations, especially for the language editions that have gone out of print, but I only have the four, myself. Would it be easy to get a copy of the Romanian translation for my collection, and where would I go? --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It was published by Nemira publishing house, which has an online store which sells it, but I'm not sure whether they ship it outside Romania. bogdan | ^Talk 07:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently not. And I haven't seen one listed on ebay yet either. ;) --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Substratum elements in Romanian onomastics

I'm wondering if you have any resources on Romanian names and surnames of unknown etymology/origin, which may be Dacian, Thracian, Illyrian, or something else (Cuman, etc.). For example, Crăciun may be substratum (the DEX still seems to consider a Latin origin possible however). I remember Paliga claiming some names as substratum, etc. etc., and he's surely not the first scholar to look into this. Alex 03:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There are very few first names I can think of. Maybe Bucur, Mugur, Sânziana (possibly). But I bet there are many more surnames. For Cuman, it's almost certain that there are many surnames. I can think of Odobescu (but I don't know what Odob could mean).

About Crăciun, I have read many etymologies, Thracian, Latin, Slavic, but I'm not happy with any of them. bogdan | ^Talk 07:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, not Slavic or Latin, I'm sure of that. There's this Wiki article relating to the Thracian Craciun etymology that I'm looking for, be back. Alex 07:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I had some stuff on a possible Slavic etymology on my home computer. Anyway, in Hungarian it's hu:karácsony (read "cora-cio-ni") (BTW, that article has an "etimológiája" section). bogdan | ^Talk 08:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't really read Hungarian without my dictionary, but I think it says that it may be a Sarmatian word. ---Alex 08:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It also says that it meant Winter solstice and was borrowed from the Slavs. bogdan | ^Talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hungarians from the Slavs, and the Slavs from the Sarmatians. But the DEX only mentions (and thus gives official credit to) a possible Latin source. Alex 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the article I was talking about:Paganism in the Eastern Alps. It mentions a demon associated with the Yule season, named Krampus (from PIE *ger-, 'to curve'), meaning 'claw' in Old High German. The Thracian etymology of Crǎciun is from PIE *ker-, 'to curve', and this etymology I found in Paliga's file after I independently derived Crǎciun from PIE *ger-, 'to curve' (wrong root for Daco-Thracian, but the idea was the same). So this Thracian etymology from PIE *ker-, 'to curve, bend' appears possible, but I haven't looked into the Hungarian or Slavic or alleged Sarmatian forms. Alex 08:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pondweed

By some coincidence we had an edit conflict on pondweed, however i re-redirected it, as my hutchinson pedia specifically says it is Potamogeton, and the internet in generally seems to agree. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 15:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nösnerland

Hello! You might be interested in the Nösnerland article I recently started with the Ţara Bârsei article as a base. The Nösnerland was the other area of early settlement of the Transylvania Saxons. Any additional information (or relevant articles) would be appreciated. Would you happen to be able to find out the proper Romanian/Hungarian names for the region? Olessi 20:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Nösnerland is "Ţara Năsăudului" in Romanian. [2] bogdan | ^Talk 20:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map of the Roman province of Illyricum

Hi Bogdan, I was wondering if you have a map of the Roman province of Illyricum available for this article: Roman province of Illyricum. I have maps that include Illyricum, but not a map of the province on its own at a certain period of Roman history. Thanks in any case, Decius 04:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

According to a reference of mine (Western Civilization, Harper & Row, 1975), and according to the article Dalmatia, in 10 AD the province of Illyricum was divided between Pannonia in the south and Dalmatia in the north, so any image of the Illyricum province would depict a period before 10 AD (I don't think the province of Illyricum was ever resurrected). An image of Illyricum should specify what point in history (before 10 AD) it is representing. ---Decius 07:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have some maps of the Roman Empire, I'll through them. bogdan | ^Talk 12:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether it would be helpful to you, but here it is one: Image:Dacia-xxl.jpg. bogdan | ^Talk 12:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Bogdan. I'm going to drop notes on other Wikipedians' talk pages (maybe User:PANONIAN) about Roman province maps. Wikipedia has the potential of being a comprehensive internet source on the layout of the Roman provinces throughout history (which would be interesting). Decius 12:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, from comparing Image:Roman Empire Map.png with actual maps of the region, this Wiki image is out of synch: it divides Moesia Inferior from Thracia well above that Adriatic Illyrian bay which in the other maps basically aligns with the Moesia Inferior--Thracia division (the image has the division at a higher latitude). The bay I'm talking about is where the present-day Albanian town of Shëngjin is located. ---Decius 13:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's probably an error from whoever made the map, because no other map shows Thracia to have such borders (though it's possible that it had such borders at some time, but this needs to be verified). It's not the projection of the map at fault, but whoever misdrew the border. In actual maps, the border between Moesia Inferior and Thracia dips down to just approximately 42 degrees Latitude, 24 degrees longitude, but not in the Roman Empire Map.png image. The bay is situated barely below 42 degrees latitude, so they're supposed to align there as they do in the other maps. ---Decius 13:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A poll, again?

I am under the impression that I'm being ignored. Last time when I was ignored was when I asked Zocky what mechanisms will stop ethnic majorization in the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs poll. He had no answer, as a matter of fact he dissapeared from the English Wikipedia soon afterwards, while everybody (even the Greeks) agreed that polls are shouldn't resolve interethnic disputes, since the voting is blatantly biased (on both sides). It is to be expected that the bigger ethnic group would win.

So, I will ask the same question again: What mechanisms will stop ethnic majorization in the Macedonian Denar/Disclaimer poll? (It is obvious that the "For the Disclaimer" vote is 100% composed of ethnic Greeks) And then another question, which bothers me as a fellow Wikipedian (I practically run the Macedonian Wikipedia): You were absolutely sure that the disclaimer is Greek POV (the Wikipedia policy is indeed very clear) - why then a poll if the NPOV policy is "absolute and non-negotiable"? And please, could you answer me the questions I have asked several days ago?

You are right that the poll was not a good idea, since the NPOV is not subject to negotiations, but I have no way to remove those disclaimers: the Greeks keep reverting them and the rest of world avoids entering in the negotiations of Balkan issues like the plague. I was hoping that the poll would attract some people, but instead it attracted the same old Greeks vs. non-Greeks. bogdan | ^Talk 19:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IMHO...

The answer is rather straightforward. If the user is permanently practising edits without logical explanation in the discussion page or actually vandalizing Wikipedia, should be blocked for 24H (explaining the reasons why), and if the user continues with such behaviour, should be blocked for 48H, and further blocks (if necessary) are proportionally longer, up to one month. That is not a matter of sysop autocracy (and this post is not a matter of my personal revenge), it's what a sysop does, actually - ensuring the normal development of Wikipedia articles. I guess you know that, however, I guess you were also afraid from being pointed as an anti-Greek sysop, or whatever. But by releasing the poll, you are actually, opening the doors for legitimization of nationalism.

Nationalism on Wikipedia is not to be allowed, from neither of the sides (I frequently have problems with Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalists in the Macedonian Wikipedia). It is also becoming an increasing threat for Wikipedia articles relevance (that's what we are fighting for, am I right?), so I think that the 700.000 articles heavy English Wikipedia should be, at the moment, telling itself: "People, we have a problem with nationalism" and searching solutions for it, not avoiding it, as in this case. I'll probably have the honour to meet Jimbo Wales personally by the end of October, so I'll adress my opinions about some of the possible solutions directly to him. Cases such as Macedonian Slavs are a shame for Wikipedia.

As for the poll, I'm abstaining, and I will, as much as I can, elaborate my reasons why, in its corresponding talk page. Please see them. Also, please deal with User:Odysseas - sockpuppetry is a serious violation of Wikipedia policies. --FlavrSavr 00:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. User:Odysseas and Colossus (a different nick used by the user in the poll) are obviously the same person/user. I'd say that this a direct violation of this policy. Or should we have a poll on that, too? (Sorry for being ironic, I simply feel that way, especially after the "Macedonian Slavs" poll disaster) --FlavrSavr 14:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian location maps

Hi Bogdan. I know that you have done some city location maps for Romanian cities, such as Image:Constanta in Romania.png. I was wondering if it would be possible to do location maps like this for all Romanian cities. Did you use a certain script to generate them? Would it be possible to upload the blank map used for the location of cities? And also the blank blue-purple map used for images such as this: Image:Bihor.png. I would like to use them for things such as Romanian development regions, and various regional statistics. Or can these blank maps be found somewhere on Wikimedia already? Thanks, Ronline 08:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. No, I don't have a script, but it isn't hard to make one. I would just need a list with the co-ordinates of the Romanian cities. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 13:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battles

The articles should be moved from Category:Romanian battles to a category "Battles of <country>" per a recent CFD discussion. As far as the specific destination, I was under the impression that battles should be categorized by the historical participants rather than the corresponding modern countries (so that we can properly categorize medieval battles between Moldavia and Wallachia, for instance), but if you have reason to feel otherwise, I have no particular objection to using Category:Battles of Romania for all of them. -- Kirill Lokshin 15:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had an objection for Battle of Şelimbăr, for which you put "Battles of Hungary | Battles of Wallachia". Andrew Bathory's army was Transylvanian-Hungarian, just like Mihai's was a Wallachian-Romanian. At the time Transylvania was not part of Hungary (see: Transylvania#Transylvania as an independent principality), so we either have Romania/Hungary or we have Wallachia/Transylvania.

Anyway, I think it's better a main Category:Battles of Romania and with subcategories Category:Battles of Wallachia and Category:Battles of Moldavia. bogdan | ^Talk 15:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that; my knowledge of some of the intricacies of Romanian and Hungarian history isn't as good as I'd like. I'll recategorize the remaining articles from Category:Romanian battles to Category:Battles of Romania, and the correct subcategories can then be added later. -- Kirill Lokshin 15:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maramures

Hy, Can you mediate a small issue related to a history section for the Maramureş county? Thx --Orioane 06:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EB 2004

A individual with an IP address which resolves to the corporate office of Encyclopedia Brittanica is asking where the list of 2004 topics came from. As your name is first in the page history, I have identified you as their likely source, and possibly the only person who knows for sure. The thread in question is here. In responding, I would encourage you to choose your words carefully as I fully expect that EB will be exploring the copyright implications of this list, and considering possible actions should they judge it to be a violation. Dragons flight 15:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I would echo the words above about the need for caution, though I would add that, in my opinion (IANAL), they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bogdangiusca, can you clarify the source of the list of EB articles? Is the answer to this question ("Where did the list come from?") different depending upon who is doing the asking? Why is that significant? (BTW, IANAL) 16:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ping? 216.146.93.139 15:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pong! bogdan | ^Talk 21:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the answer is simple. The source of the lists is (*surprise*) Brittanica itself. You published them first, didn't you? You're a publishing company, I would expect you to know these things (or, you could at least look it up in an encyclopedia ;-) ). And if you don't want people to use index of your works, why bother with publishing it? It's fair use, no matter what some license said, so live with it. I think this is the best answer anyone is willing to give you here. Samohyl Jan 07:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And there are three versions of Britannica: the paper version, the online version and the CD-ROM version. If I used one of the last two, Britannica may argue that I violated the EULA, but I would remind them that the EULA is only valid in the US. bogdan | ^Talk 07:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian template

I think we should nominate that template for deletion under WP:TFD. - Darwinek 21:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I suppose that after it would get deleted, the six Greeks (see their list at Talk:Macedonian_denar/Vote#For_the_disclaimer) would just replace it with a non-template note in each article. bogdan | ^Talk 21:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. So can you go ahead and nominate the template for deletion? We can always protect that pages or block these users from editing. - Darwinek 21:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. bogdan | ^Talk 21:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Friejose 22:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You were right

User:Odysseas and User:Colossus are not the same user (IP check done). I guess that this time I got carried away. I put my personal emotions, my personal dissapointment of the general apathy of the English Wiki administration (with issues concerning Macedonians), before actually investigating the matter. I should have cooled down a bit before doing that. Sorry guys. --FlavrSavr 01:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hargita Megye

Just a short note - I see you removed "megye" from the Székelyudvarhely page. Actually, "megye" is just as "official" as "judet" in Hargita County.

I'm sorry, but according to the Romanian constitution, the official name of the administrative subdivision is "judeţ" and the only official language of Romania is Romanian. Minority languages, such as Hungarian, may be used at city/commune level when more than 20% of people belong to a certain ethicity, but at county-level, Romanian is the only language used. bogdan | ^Talk 21:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

... but we should include this information somewhere, maybe in Counties of Romania. bogdan | ^Talk 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link to the Romanian constitution. It's a shame that it's only in Romanian, and that not all nationalities of Romania can understand it :( It would be useful if the above information was included somewhere though. Anyhow, are you sure you are taking into account the recent language law? My understanding was that at the level of the Romanian state representative, the Prefect, Romanian is the official language, while at the county level, the County Council, minority (in this case majority) languages are "official."--Pali 09:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of Pindo

The nationalist Greek User:Theathenae removed mention [3] that some Aromanians want to set up an autonomous region in Pindos. Let's find references for this and restore it in the article. ---The Prime Minister 02:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

And preferably not a Rumanian (nationalist) source, if at all possible. Cheers.--Theathenae 07:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zmeu

Greetings, Bogdan. Paliga may have taken his ebook LexEtym_Ro.zip offline, but I was wondering if you can help me locate it. I need it as proof that I am not including original research in Zmeu. I downloaded his file on a previous computer, but I erased it while cleaning things out some months ago. It is not even relevant whether you or I might disagree with his hypothesis concerning Zmeu (if you remember it; it also involved zmeurǎ), it will be included as a dissenting etymology per established Wikipedia precedent. ---Decius 22:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I pasted it at Talk:Romanian dragon bogdan | ^Talk 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot thank you enough. The only reason I erased Paliga's file was because my previous computer had a virus. Thanks, ---Decius 23:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colaborare.

Am initiat articolul Stufstock, daca vrei sa il mai modifici, sa ma anunti... --Locketudor 07:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration for User:Theathenae

A petition for Arbitration has been brought against User:Theathenae because of his behavior in the Talk:Arvanites dispute. You can add evidence if you wish here. REX 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, could you help me on Talk:Megleno-Romanians. REX 20:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

It is the consequence of the usage of the name in the official english translation in the constitution of the break away republic. it is the way we say Côte d'Ivoire in stead of Ivory Coast en Myanmar in stead of Burma. It was a change made on the List of countries. Electionworld 11:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

So what? Here on Wikipedia, we use the most common English form and Transnistria is hundreds times more often used than Pridnestrovie. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.

bogdan | ^Talk 11:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assemble your pens at the Battle of Vaslui!

I, hereby, call on all Romanians to contribute, with what they can, for the article Battle of Vaslui. Add photos, correct any inaccuracies, and feel free to add a tabloid, as the one that exist in all articles describing a battle. Example: Battle of Varna. --Anittas 23:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Addentum: there is already a stub article about the battle, but it goes under the erroneous name of Battle of Podul Înalt. See: Podul Înalt. The battle started at Podul Înalt, but the name of the battle is Battle of Vaslui.

I'll try to do some copy-edit to that article. bogdan | ^Talk 18:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earthquake lights

Congratulations on writing Earthquake lights! -Dpr 07:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. bogdan | ^Talk 18:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ajutor

Am nevoie de ajutor. Cretinul ala de om prost (nu pot sa-i spun pe nume, dar ai sa-ti dai seama cine este) imi maltrateaza articolol. El zice ca Suleyman este forma gresita si ca e mai bine sa folosim Suleiman. Nu vreau sa te obosesc cu explicatii, dar daca te duci la talk:Battle of Vaslui, ai sa vezi.

El si cu prietena lui (o vrajitoare din Irlanda) se duc la talkpage al meu si la Userpage:Anittas, si le tot reverseaza (exista cuvantul asta in romaneste?)

Nu stiu cum sa scap de barbarii astia de britani. Tu nu poti sa faci nimica? Omul ala scarbos habar nu are despre subiectul asta, dar isi baga nasul numai ca sa ma frece me pine la cap. --Anittas 20:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Vrajitoarea aia s-a dus la pagina mea personala si a revertato de doua ori, spunand ca violez regurile. S-a suparat ca am spus ca prietenul ei este un nihilictic snob. Nu am dreptul sa-mi spun parerea? --Anittas 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Nu am dreptul sa-mi spun parerea?" Nu sub forma unui atac personal. MihaiC 03:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Nu sub forma unui atac personal" -- El cand a spus ca nu stiu sa vorbesc engleza a fost o parere, dar eu cand imi spun parerea, e atac personal? Si de ce tot schimba articolul despre Vaslui? Pentru ca este un handicapat, de aia! --Anittas 04:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Dunarii photo

Hi, I've listed the 250-pixel-high Delta Dunarii photo Image:Delta Dunarii 250.jpg for deletion as I've uploaded the original, bigger version Image:Delta Dunarii 500.jpg instead. Hope this is OK. Mysid (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chisinau

Salut, te rog sa nu mai schimbi la Chisinau componentza etnica. Nu ai nici un motiv sa amesteci romanii cu moldovenii, orice parere nu ai avea, ceea ce e in wikipedia nu trebuie sa fie subiectiv, nu i asha?

Merci pentru intzelegere. serhio 18:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Salut. Cei 4,4% care acum sunt "români", în urmă cu 15 ani, la recensământul din 1989, erau "moldoveni". bogdan | ^Talk 19:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Nu se shtie cine shi ce era, shi de unde o aparut, chiar daca e asha cum zici, aceasta e alegerea lor, shi aici noi nu putem schimba nimic, doar oamenii insasi pot decine cine sunt, shi cine sunt, au spus la recensamant, datele caruia se pot interpreta doar asha, cum sunt declarate, apoi publicate. Noi trebuie doar sa expunem faptele cum sunt. ;)

serhio 06:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Merci pu "licentierea" hartii etnice. Nu ma pricep in aceste licentze nici un ... kiligram de carnatz uscat :)

serhio 08:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moldova

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation

Exemple: Mercury

Yes, I know of disambiguations, but I just thought it would be better to let the whole region there, like it is at Macedonia. bogdan | ^Talk 20:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Imi pare rau doar ca am inregistrat pagina ca:
Moldova_(Republic_Of)
trebuia:
Moldova_(Republic_of)

20:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Nu trebuie să foloseşti "copy şi paste" pentru a muta un articol, pentru că aşa nu se păstrează istoria modificărilor paginii. E mai bine să foloseşti butonul "move" din partea de sus a paginii. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 20:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Da, acesta am shi facut. Nu utilizam acel link, insa sa dovedit a fi foarte util :)

serhio ^talk

M-as bucura daca ai adauga harta Moldovei de pe timpul lui Stefan, cand aveam si Chilia cu Cetatea Alba. Daca se poate... --Anittas 22:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Exemplu: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/balkans/moldvall1500s.gif (sa fie cat mai mare)

--Anittas 18:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied" If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions. After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to: {{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~ on their talk page, add {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.