User talk:Bogdangiusca/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Hungarian town names

I have seen a movement towards deleting the Hungarian names of the Moldavian town. While I don't care/know about what happens with Piatra Neamt etc., I'd say that early Catholicism is very important in the history of the towns from Siret Valley. If you remove Catholicism, be it Hungarian, German, or Italian, from Roman history, it remains close to nothing.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   13:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The earliest Catholic diocese in Moldavia was not "Hungarian": it was the Cumans diocese, established in the 13th century. The Cumans lived across the Southern half of Moldavia, from Comăneşti to Galaţi, Vaslui, Covurlui (all names of Cuman origin).
Well, the common policy is that in the lead section are listed names of significant minorities of the town. If there is/was no such minority in recorded history, but that name is somehow important, it should be written in the history section. bogdan 16:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it's the issue of the Hungarian speaking minority living on the Siret Valley. I hope nobody will say that the Hungarian name for Roman is irrelevant, as long as hundreds of Hungarians are living in a range of 10 km, like in the village of Secuieni. It is like pretending that my name is not Hungarian.

There are still thousands of Romanians living within in a range of 15 km of Belgrade. Go and add the Romanian name to that article and see if you can. :-) bogdan 16:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other I hand, I would have to lookup, but I suppose there was / is some Hungarian minority even in Tirgu Neamt / Piatra Neamt, towns where you removed the Hungarian name.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   14:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of such a minority, though I guess that at one point in the past (possibly during the Dark Age), there Hungarians in some of the cities: the names of Bacău and Suceava feel too much like borrowings from Hungarian, judging by the phonetical appearence. I'd better add this on the articles. bogdan 16:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
There are a handful of villages where some people still speak Hungarian. I had classmates, whose parents came from such villages and were able to speak Hungarian, I know some people who were children there and still speak Hungarian with their parents. The Catholic Church was really perverted during the Communism, as they (Church & Party) allowed only Romanian mess and used to send only non-Hungarian priests there. Hungarians had to learn Romanian for church and for school, and only countrymen from villages outside main roads still speak Hungarian.
I also got your point about Belgrade, but I hope Romanians and Hungarians are a bit more tolerant and less tensed than Serbs.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Drop it Lucica. Igen? Stay away from your pushing POV. Bonaparte talk 11:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I don't speak Hungarian, my people lived for long around Tirgu Neamt, on the Eastern side of the mountains - no igen bashes, OK? Secondly, you should stop seeing malefic plots against Romania. It's not a POV when I say there are Hungarians on the Siret valley and it's not a POV when I say that the Communist (and the Legion) state did everything to change their minds. I remember how the priest who was supposed to teach us about the Catholic Faith had no idea what 'Greek-Catholics' (Eastern Catholics) are. Plus, it's not a POV that their very existence is hidden to the other citizens of Romania.
As of Cuman religious inheritance, it happens that it is highly believe able that the Baia Bishop was acting on this area of the Siret valley, but there are no writings about it acting in Roman. A small town with no current or recent importance (I had an edit war with the supporters of the county-hood), with proud citizens, I'm sure that if we would learn something about documents from Cumans, we will spread it on our monuments and on the Internet ASAP.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   13:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me leave my mark on this little page (sorry, Bogdan). Bonaparte, you are wrong and judgemental this time around (I mean that "igen" thing).

p

1. I do not think that "Cumans" indicates ethnicity, but is more of a topos. Be that as it may (there really is no point in arguing the existance of national awareness in the 1200s), the Church was likely to include many native Hungarian-speakers (because this is the real category indicated) in its hierarchy (most likely the largest group within the local structure) and the followers in Moldavia. Because the Church was already (and for quite a while), the Catholic one. Consider the Csangos: their identity will eternally float between "being Catholic" and "being Hungarian" - simply because, in medieval Moldavia, the two would usually blend into each other.

At least initally, the "Catholic Cumans" were Cumans. IIRC, the Cuman tribes made an alliance with the Pope against the Byzantines. However, the Episcopate of the Cumans kept its name long after the Cumans were assimilated... bogdan 13:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

p

Towns in Moldavia have Hungarian names from around the time of their origin. Some may even be of Hungarian origin (you do not reject the obvious German connections of the town of... well... Neamţ). Hungarian names are legitimate and should stay.

p

3. Wikipedia is the place where we expand and add. It's okay to give the Latin name of some city or town, all over Europe (even though there are no Romans around to inhabit them), but you object to otherwise traditional, old names (which may be the search criteria for some users who need the equivalent of antiquated information: "I've read this transcription, but the translator could not find the modern versions of the place-names etc."). This "vae victis" attitude really has no meaning, Bonaparte.Dahn 12:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that you're right Dahn. And certainly your last words "Losers weepers" either. Bonaparte talk 13:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, why am I not right? (Perhaps you might want to take this topic on my talk page, so we do not chew up Bogdan's space.) I think you got me wrong on the vae victis: I meant that this was the nature of your reply. What I meant was that you were dismissive of an attitude, only because Hungarians are no longer present there. Also, you showed that you were ready to engage in a conflict with a person who tried to make a point. The fact that I largely agree with it should point out that the topic is not a "Hungarian" way of thinking (lest I be a betrayer to the cause :) ).Dahn 13:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've had enough with the plot theory on my hometown page. People claim that Roman county was absorbed by Neamt county, just to change ethnic proportions and to stop Hungarians from ever claiming parts of Neamt county. Well, I think more Hungarians are living in Siret valley than on Bistrita valley and, anyway, there weren't elections and there was no claimant left un-jailed (if there ever was one of them). It comes down to a theory of country salvation, but also a horrible communist act, which is of course funny and unfunded, while reverting is boring. This Hungarian danger attacking Moldova is pretty boring and I hope Bonaparte is not one of those scared by the possibility of a Hungarian Pascani. I will try to revert the Hungarian names and hopefully no war will start, be it an edit war or a Hungarian invasion. I hope Romanian names will make it in Serbia and I hope Balkans will once and for all stop all the unrests.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am so happy :)

Da, le-am primit. Mulţumesc. bogdan 19:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Creşti mare. Dacă ai timp uită-te peste acestea Romance plurals, Arvantovlaxika Bonaparte talk 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pictures Voronot, Sucevita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Voronet.2C_Sucevita Do you have such pictures Bogdan? Bonaparte talk 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imagini

Salut, mai poti sa faci niste imagini pentru niste articole? Avem nevoie de:

Mersi! --Anittas 11:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

O să încerc să le fac. bogdan 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Cum merge cu progresul? Ai inceput sau inca nu? As vrea sa expandez Battle of the Cosmin Forest, dar as vrea sa am harta... --Anittas 14:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

i've drawn the map of the Battle of Baia. and of the Battle of Războieni --Anonimu 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC) --Anonimu 16:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sate romanesti

OK, sorry. Am vrut să revin la versiunea de dinainte de mutare. O să corectez. bogdan 13:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nu-i nici o problema. Mersi frumos. :) Tu dai mai usor revert.
http://www.erdely.com/moldvaimagyarsag.php daca vrei sa vezi in romana istoria Secuilor din Bucovina :) Bonaparte talk 13:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Nu e cam mare poza?
Nu. :-) bogdan 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
ok, e faina in orice caz. O sa sperii multi *vandali :-) Bonaparte talk 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogic Yang Spiral unreferenced tag

Hi, as I saw you added the unreferenced tag to this article, I added a link to the source article on web. This article was heavily modified in order to make it fit the wikipedia style, especially in the first half. Other references from the Yogic Yang Spiral article include the "Maharishi effect", the "Global Consciousness Project" and various other links to Kashmiri Shaivism and articles on spirals from wikipedia. I don't want to remove the tag myself because you put it and I want you to look it up ans see if it is ok and if not, please comment. Thanks. Horia 10:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hasdeu

Bogdan, daca tu editezi pe wikipedia in romana, poti sa te duci sa muti Bogdan Petriceicu-Haşdeu la Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu (Petriceicu este al doilea nume mic, nu nume de familie). La wikisource apare mai bine, doar ca are cratima. La wikisource chiar nu ma descurc. Multumesc.Dahn 13:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. bogdan 13:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Dahn 13:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ceva la care chiar nu ma pricep: poti sa faci legatura intre wikisource si articolul in engleza? Dahn 21:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nume romanesti orase Serbia :)

[[1]] Panonian ma roaga sa pun numele romanesti la orasele Novi Kneževac, Banatsko Aranđelovo, Nakovo, Novi Bečej, Aradac, Kačarevo. Ma poti ajuta Bogdan? Bonaparte talk 14:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Hey man, thanks a lot for voting in my RfA, I got it! If you need anything, just give me a shout and I'll see you on irc... :) - FrancisTyers 00:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vlachs

I'm going to go bed, yet the Vlachs article needs to be watched, and I haven't yet had time to detail "Over the centuries, the Vlachs split into various Vlach groups", etc.; we know that the different groups broke off at different times, settled in different areas, and mixed with a different set of peoples. Alexander 007 17:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll watch it. bogdan 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Alexander 007 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to believe that Slavs invaded the Macedonia (region) before Vlachs. I'm wondering if there is any evidence that contradicts this (there may be). Procopius in the 5th Century mentions towns with Vlach-sounding names, but I don't know if they were in Macedonia. Alexander 007 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Macedonia, but in Northern Greece, many of the places inhabited by Vlachs have names of Slavic origin. bogdan 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical names of Transylvania

Hello Bogdan! I noticed at Talk:Etymological list of counties of Romania you said "Cibiniensis" does not date from Roman times but from medieval Latin. Do you know if there is any validity to the "Cibinburg" paragraph at Historical names of Transylvania#Siebenbürgen? Other theories I have heard of suggest Siebenbürgen refers to seven forts built by the Teutonic Knights in Burzenland or to the hill-forts of seven Magyar chieftains. I don't know the validity of the latter theories either. Do you have an opinion if any of them should be included? Olessi 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a couple of references to that "cibinburg" theory:
http://www.haromszek.ro/siculica/acta98/ro/documente/vofkori.html
http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/minor/min00.htm
but it's just another theory. The "seven forts" of the Germans is however, a more popular theory. bogdan 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Phi Alpha

Poti bloca pagina? Dupa ce dau revert, tb sa se inteleaga mai intai pe talk page. Eu sunt mediator acolo. Mersi. Bonaparte talk 11:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the rollback button

Hi Bogdangiusca. Thank you for your involvement at moldovan language. I have a comment about this edit you made. Per Wikipedia:Administrators#Reverting, one should not

"...use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary."

Besides, that is an article you are involved in a dispute in, so using admin privileges is even more inappropriate. That is to say, please revert the old way, and state in the edit summary why you reverted. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. --Irpen 20:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark. I'll try not to do that. bogdan 21:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I've begun the process of transferring much of the historical information in History of Aromanians to the history section of Vlachs, where it belongs. There is no evidence that much of it pertains to Aromanians (in the times of Procopius, for example, Aromanians had not emerged as a separate group yet) and the Vlach-led rebellion in Bulgaria more likely refers to Daco-Romanians. Help is welcomed. Alexander 007 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to help. BTW, the Vlach-led rebellion in Bulgaria was probably the time when Romanian language got many of its Bulgarian words, as well as the Slavonic liturgy. bogdan 10:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cronici

Stii de cronici care mentioneaza pe romani folosind cuvantul "rumân" sau "român"? Stiu ca sunt, dar nu stiu unde sa caut. Deci nu valah (wallachian), ce roman. --Anittas 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Păi, mai toate care-s în română folosesc cuvântul.
  • primul document al lui Neacşu din 1521 vorbeşte de "Ţeara Rumânească". Vezi Image:Scrisoarea lui Neacsu.jpg.
  • Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei, al lui Grigore Ureche: (1640s)
    • În ţara Ardealului nu lăcuiescu numai unguri, ce şi sasi peste samă de mulţi şi români peste tot locul, de mai multu-i ţara lăţită de români decâtu de unguri. Iară în Ţara Ungurească de jos, unde să chiiamă Unguriia cea Mare (sau cumu-i zicu unii pre limba nemţască Panoniia), acolo numai unguri trăiescu, iară de să află şi români pre alocurea, încă lége ungurească ţin.
    • Eu am silit cu nevoinţă de am izvodit dipre acela izvod, pre limba românească această povéste lui Dispot.
  • Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei, al lui Miron Costin: (1670s) s:ro:Miron Costin
    • "Moldovenii mainte de Dragoş-vodă să chema vlahi sau rumâni de la Rîm"
    • "Ştiia limba sîrbească Gaşpar-vodă şi cîndŭ i-au mustratŭ pre căpitanii cei prinşi orheieni, li-au dzis sîrbeşte: „Да имаете срдце чисто къ Господарю". Le tîlmăciia apoi aceste cuvinte pre rumâniie Bucioc vornicul de Ţara de Gios, adecă: „Să aveţi inimă curată spre Domnŭ"."
    • "dîndŭ ştire că den mila lui Dumnedzău au stătut domnŭ Ţărîi Româneşti"
  • Constantin Cantacuzino - Istoria Ţării Rumâneşti (prin 1700) s:ro:Constantin Cantacuzino
    • "ţara această Muntenească numeind, cum îi zic mai mulţi aşa; că Rumânească numai lăcuitorii ei o chiamă, şi doar unii den ardeleni ăiî rumâni"
    • "valahi zic unii (adecăte rumâni)"
  • Letopiseţul Cantacuzinesc:
    • "Iar după acéia, Mehmet-beiu au cerşut domniia de la împăratul aici în Ţara Românească, zicând că-l pohtéşte ţara să fie el domn. Drept acéia împăratul crezu pre Mehmet-bei şi i-au dat domniia în Ţara Rumânească." (două propoziţii succesive, în care în una foloseşte românească, în alta rumânească)
bogdan 10:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Golaniada

Hello Bogdan,

I'd like to start putting a bit in perspective the articles related to two extremely controversed subjects: Golaniada and Mineriada. As they are now, they express only the oppinion of supporters. While I respect your oppinion, I think this is not fair, nor NPOV. Why am I doing this? Because I think it is time to see the things as they were and cease to create false moral references. It's like being religious just because you cannot judge by yourself.

So: I made a first edit that may have been a little premature. Let's discuss this and come up with a NPOV version. I believe that the following things must be said here:

  1. . The anti-communists were mostly former communists.
  2. . The majority of the population was against it.
  3. . The guilt is not as clear-cut as the articles present it.

Let me argue a bit for these two points:

1. In 1989 the Communist Party had almost 4 members for a population of 22 million (the largest communist party in relative terms). It was practically impossible to obtain a position of responsibility without being a party member. For instance, becoming a University professor practically required party membership. It was also practically impossible to go abroad without the consent of the Securitate (which in a sense formed the hard core of the regime). Therefore:

a) Of the University professors that participated to Golaniad, most were party members.

b) Unfortunately, the situation was even "worse", because many of the moral references of the Golaniad had been deeply involved with the communist power. I already mentioned Paler, but I should also mention Blandiana, which navigated for a long time in the communist high-life. To my knowledge, the communist high-life and the members of the "Securitate" dispersed rather indiscriminately in the new political parties, and occupied high rank positions even in PNT. Of course, there were figures like Coposu (or you preferred opponent), but there were only few left from before 1944, while the younger ones were actually as dissident as Iliescu.

2. The majority of the population of Bucharest did not support the Golaniad movement. And there is a clear measure for this: the results of the 1990 elections. You can argue that the public was not well informed, and I clearly agree with you, but nonetheless, this is a fact. What I wrote about disruptive behavior is true. Just imagine Times Square, or Place de l'Etoile blocked for months. Actually, this is why I mostly resent the current presentation: I used to live nearby and it became a hell after the first two weeks. And people were actually more annoyed than anything else.

3. Something must be said about the situation of the police (or were they still "militia"?) at that time. I do not know your age (I'm 30, therefore 14 at the time), but you may remember that the guys were afraid of doing anything. This is at least one of the causes 13 june was possible, as well as the Targu Mures events. This is usually called "vid de putere" (lack of power).

So: let's discuss this.

Yours,Dpotop 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limba noastra

Salut, am nevoie de cunostintele tale.

Cat de multe cuvinte au fost introduse din Italiana si franceza, in romana? Cat de multe procente fac aceste cuvinte din limba noastra? Cat de multe procente din cuvinte sunt de origine latina? Se spune ca sunt in jur de 60-70, dar cum a fost cazul inainte de a imprumuta aceste cuvinte? Cat de latina a fost graiul munteneasc si moldovenesc? --Anittas 12:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever good info you guys gather, add it here:Romanian lexis. But the opening paragraph will not give percentages for the contemporary language, I chose to frame the article in a more professional chronological fashion, unlike the less-professional Bulgarian, Spanish, and Portuguese, etc., articles. Alexander 007 12:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Nu se poate da un răspuns clar la o asemenea întrebare. Depinde cum faci calculul. Procentul de cuvinte din dicţionar, procentul de cuvinte folosit în cărţi, procentul de cuvinte folosite în conversaţie, etc. Chiar şi aşa variază în funcţie de stilul de a vorbi al fiecărei persoane. De exemplu, la ţară se folosesc mai puţine neologisme decât la oraş. În zonele izolate (de exemplu în Apuseni), nu prea se folosesc neologisme, în timp ce în mediile specializate (afaceri, ştiinţă, etc) se folosesc extrem de multe neologisme.

Ca exemplu, în poezia lui Eminescu:

                Vocabulary      Usage
1. latin inherited:  48,68%      83,00%
2. slavic            16,81%       6,93%
3. french            11,97%       2,52%
4. latin literary     3,41%       1,13%
5. hungarian          1,63%       0,84%
6. neogreek           1,33%       0,29%
7. turkish            1,20%       0,28%

Cât despre diferenţa în numărul de cuvinte moştenite între graiul muntenesc şi moldovenesc, ea nu este semnificativă: în general diferenţele consist în cuvinte împrumutate (din tătară, ucrainiană în Moldova şi din turcă, greacă în Muntenia)

bogdan 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Omule, deci categoric ca ma refer la cuvintele din vocabularul nostru; deci din dictionar. Cate cuvinte s-au introdus din italiana si franceza, iar ce parte fac ele din limba noastra (in procent), iar cat de latina a fost limba noastra inainte de a fi fost introduse aceste cuvinte? Asta vreau sa stiu. Mersi. --Anittas 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Alo? Stiti sau nu stiti? --Anittas 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't have an exact figure, but I'd guess it's something like 70-80% French and/or Italian, 8-10% Slavic (most of them obsolete and replaced by the French words), 5-6% Latin inherited. If you really want the exact statistics, I can make a script and run it over the DEX database. bogdan 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I asked how much of our language was replaced with words from French and Italian. Are you saying that our language was replaced by 70-80 percent with French and Italian words? I'm guessing there is a misunderstanding here, but yes, please make a script to find out. Do anything you can. We should know these figures. --Anittas 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of those French words are technical international words. As I told you, in common use, their number is smaller. bogdan 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me know what you find out. Seventy percent is too much, even for technical words. --Anittas 00:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
And the pre-Roman words are in the rest of the figure (you can't write Romanian poems without using some; actually you can of course, but I was speaking broadly), along with minor sources (German, Italian, etc.; Eminescu probably used some of those). Alexander 007 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results

(it's just a very quick test -- I'll make a more reliable script tomorrow)

fr. 24609
sl. 2116 (sl. 1088 + bg. 488 + scr. 156 + pol. 384)
lat. 1474
ngr. 1423
germ. 1149
turc. 783
it. 705
ung. 423
alb./dac. 208

bogdan 00:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, these results do not include internal derivations -- and Latin inherited words have lots of them ("căsătorie" is one example) bogdan 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a plan, my friends. In the English Wiktionary (though this will also be done in the Romanian Wiktionary), I am steadily starting entries on Romanian words, and adding categories: Of Latin derivation, Slavonic, Literary Latin, French, etc. If such categories ever become complete, you will be able to click on the cat and see all the Romanian words that belong to each cat. This would aid in calculating percentages. Alexander 007 07:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian Voivodships in 1600?

Voivodships of Romania in 1600
Voivodships of Romania in 1600

Are you sure Transylvania was a ROMANIAN voivodship in 1600? As far as I know, the expression "Romanian" was only used in Wallachia, and only after the 19th century, the creation of modern Romania was the meaning extended to Moldova? And to Transylvania after 1920.
The explanatory text you have written is misleading anyway. A foreigner not familiar with Transylvanian history would think that Transylvania was united with the two other principalities for quite a long time during the middle ages and this state was called Romania. --KIDB 15:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

KIDB, would you mind correcting the English in this sentence of yours: "As far as I know, the expression "Romanian" was only used in Wallachia, and only after the 19th century, the creation of modern Romania was the meaning extended to Moldova?"...Alexander 007 18:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I know what you intend, but the way you wrote it was quite ambiguous. The expression "Romanian" was used throughout Transylvania and Moldavia, but was it used when speaking of voivodships (e.g., a Romanian voivodship of Transylvania). Non-Romanian, non-Hungarian readers stumbling upon this page can easily read your sentence and get the impression that the adjective/noun Romanian simply dropped from the sky after the 19th century, when in fact it goes back before 1600 as shown by documents (much earlier than that, there are simply no documents, but no historian or linguist disputes that the term evolved directly from the Latin word Romanus, meaning a Roman, e.g., a citizen of the Roman Empire, citizenship (thus, the right to call oneself a Roman) having been extended to all who lived in the Roman territory. Alexander 007 18:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Readers, for more on this, see Talk:History of Romania#Wallachia or Romania?. Alexander 007 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My vote goes to KIDB on this one.He is right-for-all-purposes on the question of the adjective (sure the term features in Miron Costin's or whatever's works, but it is nowhere meant to imagine a state). If it is meant for ethnicity:

  • 1. Let us be reserved about attributing ethnicieties in the Middle Ages;
  • 2. Let us admit that Transylvania was not Romanian-ruled (ethnically, or state-included... since, well, the state only originated in 1866).Dahn 18:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
In the case of Romanian, I do not agree with your point number 1. The Vlachs, foremost, used a term deriving from romanus to describe themselves: that term was/is român and/or rumân (=Romanian, in English). Their ethnicity was Romanian (those north of the Danube). Of course, we cannot speak of a Romanian nationality back then, but ethnicity, I see no problem. Does any historian see a problem here? Alexander 007 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity is contrieved, just as well. The identity was given by Orthodoxy, if need be, and by the fact that they were serfs. Their serfdom and, thus, not-really-there-officially status within Transylvania is the most relevant reason for caution with "Transylvania being Romanian". Consider as parallels: "Mexico is Aztec", "Canada is Algonquin", "Australia is Aborigenous Australian" etc. The fact is that there was no nation other than nobility (and ethnicity was defined within it, if need be, for Hungarians, Szeklers and Saxons: which was not a distinction in the modern sense, since they were different social categories - respectively noblemen-proper, free men, colonists obeying the king). The "Romanian Principality of Transylvania" is a leftover of Ceausescu rhetoric (mainly whitewashing). I hope the point I'm making does not make me look like being on the different side of a barricade. I just aim for less subjectivity. Dahn 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, can you be more specific? Saying: "Their identity was given...by the fact that they were serfs..." is not quite illuminating for an English reader, nor does it seem accurate. Nor would historians agree that their ethnic identity was given by their Orthodoxy or their "serfdom". If a Slav was a serf, and Orthodox, he would still not be a Vlach/Romanian. Unless I'm mistaken, you are speaking of social status, not ethnicity. Alexander 007 19:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
To repeat: I disagree completely with your point number 1 as far as Romanians in the Middle Ages are concerned. Alexander 007 20:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Hungarians were concerned, people of all origin could be serfs. However, some Catholics were serfs, as opposed to all Orthodox being serfs (by law). The identity was exclusively religious from the point of view of the functional/functioning state-structure. On the bottom level, the situation cannot really be reconstructed. I. e.: I do not think that "Slav" serfs and "Romanian" serfs made a distinction among themselves as for the sake of it. Whatever people called themselves cannot be known for sure. Why? Because a person who had the means to learn to write (and thus record it), up until the XVIth century or so (and in many regions for long after that), was no longer connected in any way with serfs etc. That "they considered themselves..." is a generic statetment, for which there can be no proof. Whatever identity was slowly forged, it was given in time by servitude itself. Most serfs would not see whatever was beyond the domain they were tied to (it's a documented fact, I've read books that made this clear for serfs in Northern Italy or Southern France, such as that of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie - I really see no point for it being otherwise here). The grinding mechanism of other forces, introduced by modernity, has ssslllooowwwllllyyyy constructed different options. And even then, if you look at the Romanian Transylvanian peasants as late as 1848, they were deeply loyal to the Emperor in Vienna. Even intellectuals in the Transylvanian School had used the ideology of our Latin origin to prove: 1. that we had as "clean" a pedigree as any other nation (since prejudice against them had been turning to ethnical themes, a contribution of secularism within the Empire); 2. that we were deeply connected to the person of a still-offically-Roman Emperor (of the Holy Roman Empire, of course).Dahn 20:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But pehaps all of this is beside the point: even under your own assumptions, Transylvania cannot be "Romanian", since it never had a Romanian administration.Dahn 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with your point 1 completely in this case. Your speculation that the average Slav and Vlach in the same social class did not make an ethnic distinction is unverifiable, and contradicted by evidence to the contrary (I seem to remember, for example, Vlachs, Bulgars, and Greeks, Bulgars by that time meaning Bulgarians (a Slav people), unless I'm mistaken). If you look at the Aromanians and Istro-Romanians in diaspora, they also preserved their own idea of a distinct romanus-derived ethnicity up into modern times. Your speculation is rather wrong, and it is preferable that you don't include your speculation in Wikipedia articles unless you have suitable references. But yeah, probably the lines between ethnic groups were often eclipsed by social status, but that doesn't negate ethnic distinctions. The Daco-Romanian speaking Vlachs of the Middle Ages were ethnic Romanians of their time, nor do I know of a historian who would disagree with that terminology. It is not quite an anachronism, as you speculate. Alexander 007 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again. What contributed to the distinctions (and it did so in time) was the fact that serfs were not allowed to move. Which led to uniformity in regions. You assume that they were dealing with speakers of several languages on a regular bases. I don't think that they did. I mean, look around: social levels and languages/identities tend to co-incide, which led to assimilations within one level and differentiations between levels. Let me point out that, if "Iancu" Hunyadi ever identified himself as "Romanian" or whatever, he was still regent of Hungary. How is "being Romanian" matter here, even if appliable?! The same for Aromanians (which are only arguably and wishful-thinking-fuly "Romanian"). What mattered in their difference was the fact that most were sheepherders, mobile and free. But, for the third time, even if I am completely wrong about all of these, nothing makes 1600s Transylvania "Romanian". If you don't change the legend on the map, I'm gonna go over to the United States article and change the title to the "Sioux United States". If they consider me a vandal, it's your fault entirely. :) Dahn 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that ethnic distinctions existed as well as social status. The caption in the image was not written by me and it is not my responsibility. Alexander 007 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
See Romania in the Middle Ages for a different caption to the same image. Alexander 007 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Do as you will. Let me go out on this note: I did provide proof for my statements (or directed in that general area). An anthropological studies of records have shown that ethnicity was purely abstract in the Middle Ages (Ladurie, for one). Lucian Boia has also made ample comments on XIXth century etc, national mythology and its dream of etarnal existence. The Scool of Annales has shown that nuance and carefulness should dominate our perspective about the past, especially the time dealt with here (since it has been the working tool of nationalism for so long). Check out Fernand Braudel's La Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen a l'époque de Philippe II for a perspective on what dominated the Balkans during the 1590s (his is an analysis that also looks deep beyond that time). The prevailing point of view is that people's identities were constantly shifting: the common, generic, level was Christendom (or a particular Church). Beyond it was the social order you belonged to, and then the ellusive ethnicity (which never "stayed put": compare with the many avatars of Bosniaks, Croats, Ukrainians etc.). Dahn 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the Vlachs (all branches). Whatever situation there was in France or Italy doesn't apply. I will provide more evidences later. Alexander 007 21:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. You're right. Romania is unique. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it. Also, here we can breathe under water and leap over high buildings. (Note: Braudel made points about the Balkans as well. He has 1000 books or so in his bibliography, including Gheorghe Bratianu.) Dahn 21:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing to consider: The former territory of the Eastern Roman Empire was also sometimes called Romania, or Rumelia, this also might lead to confusion. In fact I have at home an original late 18th century English map where "Romania" is indicated around the present European part of Turkey... And of course there is Wallachia and Moldavia a bit Norther up...--KIDB 09:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I am lucky, I didn't have to go home, here is a similar map on Wikipedia: [2]--KIDB 09:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strehaia

Hi Bogdan! I'll stick to English so that other people understand this too: when you created the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strehaia&oldid=17018811) you said that many of the people living there are gypsies. It has just been removed with no comment by an anonymous user (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strehaia&oldid=17018811) (Personally I think that there is some subtle campain of promoting Oltenia related articles, both on English & on Romanian wikipedia). --09:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the exact figures from the 2002 census. [3] bogdan 09:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Similar thing happened here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Universitatea_Craiova&curid=2384859&diff=35254510&oldid=35253341

newly created user reverts my formatted page from which I've removed POV ("Over the last 41 years,even the others teams fans (Steaua or other team) can't deny our supremacy despite this sad moment for us(the club was relegated to the Second Division, this year, for the first time, after 41 years, and Ion Oblemenco stadium was suspended for three matches )." Us? Us who? Who is writing the article? --Vlad 11:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, Bogdan, still about FC Universitatea Craiova seems that the same person that I've been discussing in contradictory about several Oltenia-related articles is determined to have their way at this article: I've formatted it like the Romanian one (which he accepted) & removed a blatant POV. Tried to put a NPOV note, reverted that too. I've been talking with Mihai (Orioane), but he indicated I should be talking to you (as he was going out). Thank you very much for you help! --Vlad 12:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I cleaned-up the article on Universitatea Craiova and I'll keep an eye on them on the other articles. bogdan 12:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! You and Mihai were of great help! --Vlad 12:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary

I'm not sure whether the Romanian word Roman/roman (meaning "Roman", long a) should go here or here or both. Alexander 007 09:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Small "r". In Romanian, ethnicities/nationalities are written in lower case. bogdan 09:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I figured, but wasn't sure. Thanks. Alexander 007 09:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinaia Monastery

Hello,

I noticed you added the Category:Romanian Orthodox monasteries that I had just created to Category:Monasteries in Romania, thank you for that.

Is it safe to assume that Sinaia Monastery is a Romanian Orthodox monastery?

Yes. It is Romanian Orthodox. bogdan 21:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And do you happen to know what to do with the monasteries on Athos? (See the first two articles in Category:Orthodox monasteries.) I haven't re-categorised them yet, since Esphigmenou Monastery appears to have a conflict with the Patriarch, and I don't know whether they can still be considered to be part of the Greek Orthodox Church. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's better to create a distinct category for them: Category:Monasteries on Athos. Some are Greek Orthodox, some are Russian, Serbian, Romanian, etc. bogdan 21:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attila Ambrus

Thanks for helping out with this article. He seems to be quite a guy, and I was surprised to find no article on WP about him. The article could still probably use some more work and improvement from a better variety of sources, especially from folks like yourself who can actually read primary sources. NTK 20:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to write an article on him a month or so ago, but never got to do it. :-) bogdan 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dlugosz despre romani

In caz ca te intereseaza, apasa aici. --Anittas 00:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protochronism

I have created this article. Look through it, as I have tried to make it be NPOV. I know the prevalent vision on wiki is different, and I don't want this to degenerate. I think the pages following pages should be modified: Densusianu (who, according to the info posted, didn't write "works", but rather "scientific masterpieces"), Tartaria (which jumps at calling the scratches a "writing system"), the Statue of Decebalus (a "monument" which in fact defiles a historical site, glossing over the embarassing past of "businessman" Dragan), the "State" of Burebista (ignoring the fact that no one who isn't completely biased could even point out where Burebista resided, and how much he conquered, oops! "united" - plus the map that I think you created), the one about Zalmoxis (on and on about things that can hardly be true, and with a picture that is interesting, but hardly factual). There are some others. Now, you know me enough to have seen that I'm not partisan in such issues, so make this consistent with my efforts.Dahn 06:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghicitoare

Ghici cine este asa. ;) --Anittas 20:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference to me, Anittas? I must either have Asperger syndrome or not really care. If this is annoying you, there's little I can do about it. Sorry, anyway. BTW: I think the criteria should be wether my contributions are of any value.Dahn 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't be paranoid. It was more likely a reference to Bogdangiusca. Alexander 007 14:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Salut Bogdan. Ai pus un mesaj la Talk:Moldovan language şi cu ocazia asta ai şters mesajul meu. Din neatenţie? Uite aici: [4]. Toate cele bune! — AdiJapan ☎ 05:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, scuze. Nu ştiu cum s-a întâmplat, că nici nu observasem. bogdan 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Nici o problemă. Mă întrebam doar dacă nu cumva a fost un mod de a-mi spune că e ceva în neregulă cu mesajul meu. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting in Romania and Moldova

Thank you so much for your cleanup, I am a Scouting scholar but did not know Romanian, so I appreciate your help. That is great! Chris 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding worldturkey.com image

As far as I know, worldturkey.com wouldn't have a problem about publisihng images in wikipedia. I guess, "promote" also includes the "give info" meaning in that quote. But I understand the rules. So I will check out its sister site wowturkey.com, which would probably has a same/similar photo, who allows pics to be used without any limitations. System Halted 16:10, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Thanks

Greetings. Just wanted to thank you for promptly dealing with the turkish vandal. The Origin of Romanians is pretty impressive! I wish I had time create something like that regarding Armenians. Cheers!--Eupator 16:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transylvania

Hi,

Can you have a look a little bit over at Transylvania? I think we have a POV pusher with a 3RR violation (I've already made 2 reverts). Mihai -talk 18:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Salut. Small question Is it apropriate to make a rollback here without being accused of nationalism??? Thx Mihai -talk 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
In early medieval Latin documents Vlachs were also referred to as "Timocanis". Also, the term "moţ", used to designate Romanians living in Western Carpathian mountains, may have its root in the Timok word. (Ti-mok => ti=Hungarian "you" + mok-> moţ (say: motz)).
the name of the Timok River is derived from its ancient Latin name, "Timacus", not from Hungarian. :-) bogdan 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Vlachs may have immigrated in huge masses in Transylvania from that region
Can't be, because the Vlachs of Timok speak the Oltenian grai of Romanian, not the Transylvanian one. (This does not exclude a migration from Timok before the graiuri were splitted, but the Hungarians theory states that the Romanians came to Transylvania rather late.) bogdan 18:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So, the is conclusion is: this looks and smells like Nationalist Hungarian bullshit. :-) bogdan 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I've reverted and made a small comment on the talk page. Hope you will sustain me if the dogs are going to be unleashed. :D Mihai -talk 19:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oltenia

Bogdan, could you take a look at what's going on that page?Dahn 06:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It keeps going. Could you see that the page is locked? Dahn 09:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online places to buy Romanian scholarly texts

Know of any such sites where I can order scholarly works in Romanian on Dacians, Thracians, the history of the Romanian language, etc., online? Alexander 007 14:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't know any, but googling showed up a few, like [5] [6] bogdan 12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worldturkey images 2

Hi Bogdan, I have talked with the webmaster of worldturkey.com, for a change in copyright notice. They have added that, photos can be used freely if it is for giving information about Turkey. So it will be OK, isn't it? http://www.worldturkey.com/lang/eng/information.php --System Halted 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. I'll have to check the policies. bogdan 12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well please leave me a note when you are done. They are willing to allow the publishing of photos here, so seems like no problem with worldturkey would happen, about Copyrights. --System Halted 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No source tag

When you are using the no source tag on images, you need to include all the parameters like {{no source|month=January|day=20|year=2006}}. Otherwise, the images aren't properly tagged by their exact date. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning, dear Readers

Bogdan is anti-social. Alexander 007 12:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As a representative of the world, I'd like to thank you for the warning. bogdan 12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Better me than George W. Bush. Alexander 007 12:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
When I'm trying to conduct clandestine business via email, it helps if I know your email even works and I'm not writing into thin air. You're just being counter-productive when you remain silent like some mouse. It was a simple bit of clandestine business, not some awkward request like "Give me your sister's phone number". Alexander 007 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm... Oops. Somehow I missed your mail. I responded now. bogdan 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I will take your word for it, because I'd rather not consider you a liar. I was sending you emails for about 4 days now, and I've seen how you often ignore peoples' posts here. Alexander 007 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Learn to interact better, O Diogenes. Alexander 007 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you call those British guards that don't move a nerve and don't say a thing? Bogdanish? --Candide, or Optimism 14:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanianization

Hi Bogdan! Some important stuff from the article Romanianization has been recently deleted by Vasile.I am trying to convince him to refrain from unilateral steps like this, but I'm afraid he may be a bit suspicious with Hungarians, so my word alone may not do. Could you please have a look at the history and the talkpage of the article, and give you opinion?--Tamas 18:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try to see what the problem is about. bogdan 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

I don't have IPA fonts installed and I can't put the correct IPA form of the aspirated PIE consonants "bh" and "dh" in Dacian language#Sound changes from PIE. No rush, just bringing it your attention. Alexander 007 14:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. bogdan 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
And thanks again for that link. Alexander 007 14:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horia Sima

I don't know what you meant to do by reverting on that page, but I didn't even notice that you had been doing it (since we were editing at the same time). Sorry, I didn't mean it. Could you take a look at the page and tell me what I did wrong? I think it's better and more conventional for people to see the d.o.b. together with place of birth, and in the beginning. I might be wrong. But I was also adding new info to the article itself. The best we can do is a revised version for both our edits. Since mine is, alas, the newer one, you could go on the page and perhaps merge it with what you want kept. The Nazi links (which may or may not be still there) it could do without, I agree wholehartedly. Again, sorry. And thanks. Dahn 12:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually clicked the wrong link and reverted and then I reverted once again to your version before removing the links. bogdan 13:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's ok. Sorry for being so confused. Thanks. Dahn 13:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Romanian language authors

This particular category is bewildering. The Category:Writers by language has clearly been created to cover people who write in languages without official status or with secondary status (Breton, Catalan, Kurdish etc.). Bonaparte not only created it when there was no need in hell for it, he also arranged the authors by given name! BTW: Is he banned now? Dahn 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that category, the way it is now is redundant. Maybe we should turn it into something like Category:German language writers and have two subcategories: Category:Romanian writers and Category:Moldovan writers. bogdan 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because many Romanian writers have not limited themselves to Romanian, and several included have not written at all in Romanian (I guess it might be the same for Moldovans). The category Romanian language authors should just go out the window, in my opinion. I think that Bonaparte did not consider the details of it, since all he wanted to do was to cover ground before the Moldovans got to it. Dahn 16:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So, should I start procedures for erasing it? Dahn 17:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it right away, as it uses "authors" instead of "writers", which is the wikipedia standard for categories. bogdan 17:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoo Peninsula

Thank you , thank you, for your wonderful map of the Hoo Peninsula. To make it even more useful, it would be good to show names (River Thames, Isle of Grain, Cliffe, etc) and also re-use the map in other articles about the area. Is it possible for me to overlay names somehow? That way different articles could highlight different features/places. cheers, JackyR 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moldovan language

Thanks for your help in cleaning up the notes and links. I admit that after working through the rewrite, I needed a break! | Klaw ¡digame! 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda Due

Hola! I'm working quite a bit on Propaganda Due, Licio Gelli, Gladio, etc. I saw that you pointed out last year some article in Romanian about Ceaucescu and Gelli. I put it in external links in P2 entry, but if you could translate a bit for us, quoting it... with the little i can understand, it seems interesting... Tazmaniacs 09:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant kitsch

Please, take a look at

this
this

.

I hope it doesn't make you throw up. It is linked to the Stefan cel Mare page and to that for Suceava. I say we link it to the trash bin. Not only is it tacky, I cannot imagine whom it would interest (except for scholars of plastic art, of course). Also, it seems to be copyvio (it's an exhibit, right? meaning: you pay to get in and see such horrors). I beg of you, back me up on this one. Dahn 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! That is indeed terrifying: Ştefan as a fan of Liberace. :-) Also, the photo is a copyright violation. bogdan 12:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
What are you TALKING about??? That's my favorite memory from my school trips! Especially when they start talking! :D mike 21:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Romania

Gentle Editor/Administrator, In the Vadim Tudor discussion page we seem to have reached a consensus that "Great Romania" should indeed be changed to "Greater Romania" (notice the "ER") added.

I tried to change the subject line in the article on "Great Romania" but could not. Would very much appreciate if you could make this one correction, as evidently only people with access can make this change. I will do my best to make all the other changes.

If you have questions, pls see our discussion in the Vadim discussion area.

Many thanks MIsterMan

I moved it to the new title. It needed an administrator to make the move because the article Greater Romania Party had an edit history. bogdan 20:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ... and silver linings Thank you for your support on my RfA.
Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

[edit] Căluşari

I just left a note on Talk: Căluşari about if the term refers to the dance itself or the dancers. I was told originaly that it referd to the dancers and that the Căluşari performed the Căluşu(l). Do you know if I was misinformed? Dalf | Talk 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Budapest-Bucharest :-)

I see your note on your user page that Budapest is not the capital of Romania. This issue is indeed complicated to some people: When president Chirac visited Hungary in the late 1990s some of the French journalists ended up at Bucharest Airport, trying desperately to find their president... --KIDB 08:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Give them a break. It is but one phoneme they get wrong. :) Dahn 09:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture help

I must rely on thee yet again, Bogdan. I have not signed in with an email, and I thought it would be nice if these articles had photos in them: Benjamin Fondane, Saşa Pană, Ilarie Voronca. Could you upload them from the Romanian pages (to which they are already linked)? Thanks a bunch. Dahn 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded them and added them in the articles. bogdan 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. By why did you state they are copyrighted? They might be, I guess, but the Romanian version says they were released into public domain. Otherwise, they're gonna get erased, right? Dahn 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Because by the laws of the EU, the copyright length lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. Since the two painters died less that 70 years ago, their works are still protected. The Romanian Wikipedia has a more relax view regarding the meaning of public domain. :-) bogdan 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I kinda figured that :). I hope they don't get erased in a week or so, cause I'd be sorry to get you to this for nothing. Still, thanks. Dahn 16:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blockquote

Your edit in Târgu Mureş. But WP:MOS#Quotations is pretty clear on <blockquote> being the preferred way to do this. It doesn't even mention using colon (":") to indent (which only indents the left margin, not the right). - Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fairuse

Hi, I noticed you uploaded a few images recently, and tagged them as {{fairuse}}. As stated on the tag, please don't use it anymore; either use {{fair use in|article}} or one of the tags listed at WP:ICT#Fair_use. Thanks very much, JYolkowski // talk 01:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-paste

Bogdan, I'm not a computer guy and I don't know how to copy'n'paste. Transferring the Caucasian and Pelasgian stuff into separate articles is thus not easy for me. I either need to learn how to copy'n'paste, or---but I don't like to ask people for favors. But it is for the greater good of Wikipedia! You wanna transfer the stuff later? Alexander 007 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Select the text with the mouse and then press Ctrl+C (at the same time) to copy the text into the clipboard, then go to the new article and press Ctrl+V to paste the text. If you still need help, tell me. bogdan 17:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Copying and pasting is fun. I've been missing out. Alexander 007 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
How do I copy-paste a section of paragraphs into another section in the same article? Alexander 007 20:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm missing the humorous part of this. --Candide, or Optimism 20:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? No humor is intended... I frankly don't like computers or learning how to use them, as much time as I may spend on the net. Alexander 007 20:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Err... Again select the text, press Ctrl+C, go with the cursor to the place where you want to copy it and press Ctrl-V. bogdan 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried exactly that 3 times. Oh well. Alexander 007 20:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It worked this time. Fuck computers. I should shoot my load on it. 20:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help on Hungarian minority in Romania

Hi Bogdan,

I need some help on the Hungarian minority in Romania. Some Hungarian editor is adding Hungarian POV to the article, and then a Romanian editor added his POV! I reverted both of them, but perhaps you could do something about it, because I can't revert the Hungarian editors edits because I don't want to violate the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bukovina

Bodgan nu prea am inteles ce ai vrut sa spui la bukovina talkpage. daca ai msn, poti sa ma contactezi acolo la scorilo_4@hotmail.com.Constantzeanu 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Întâmplător nu foloseşti şi yahoo! sau google IM? În caz că nu, îmi instalez Miranda IM. :-) bogdan 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panait Istrati picture

Hi. Could you pull that picture trick again for Romanian-to-English in his case? The photo is used all over the net, nobody can name its author, and it's just been 70 years since Istrati died. Copyright? I don't think it applies. Thanks. Dahn 18:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dahn 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikitravel

There is very little consistency among external link templates... I can find several examples that link to the site itself. I think my argument is sound in that it makes people researching Wikitravel (the website) have to sift through eventually thousands of false links using Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikitravel. Let's let it be and find somewhere to discuss a more exhaustive standard. -- Netoholic @ 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craiova

Someone seems to be unhappy with your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACraiova&diff=37732213&oldid=37624709 Actually it's the same person trolling anonymously & sockpuppeting occasionally. I'm wondering how would you deal with it, besides maybe ignoring?!? Thanks! --Vlad 21:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't do that

Don't do that "silently erasing" stuff. This isn't the first time. You did it before with User:AdiJapan. Don't know if you do it by accident. You should know that you have to have edit summaries at least for those kind of removals. Alexander 007 18:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Readers, for the details see Talk:Kogaion. Alexander 007 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought it was an unsourced claim. It would be better to put in a reference. About the edit of AdiJapan, no, I didn't wanted and I had absolutely no reason to do that. bogdan 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
At the time you made the edit, it was stated on the Talk:Kogaion that it was taken from a linguist. Anyway, you should have had an edit summary ("rm unsourced claim", etc.). I guess my fault in this was that I was too lazy to add the reference in the article at the time. Alexander 007 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, what about your reference?...should I remove your addition without an edit summary?...:) Alexander 007 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Haha. OK. I put it. bogdan 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history of jews article

How would that be a copyright infringement? can you please indicate where on the jewish romanian community websitedo you find the copyright statement? and how would chronology be subject of copyright? the article was a stub and subsequent writiing would follow.all information there is easily available both on the internet and books.be specific

By the way,I don't want to be offensive,but I saw that other people complain about your behavior.namely silent deletes and the likes. Without any notice nor discussion you placed my article on copyright infringement. Well suppose that was so. What you do is at least a "not fair" procedure. My guess is that your administrator "status" somehow implies a higher rank on a wikipedia "hierarchy" that you probably perceive. Try and take it easier with that or some people, including I,would likely complain about your behaviour to those even higher on the "hierarchy" than you. This romanian-police-like attitude quite familiar to me and I can't tollerate it on such a forum.--Radufan 14:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You copy-pasted it from a website. It is a copyright violation, there's absolutely no question about it. If you want, you can complain, I won't stop you, but you're wasting your time. bogdan 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I copy pasted and was working on it at the moment you intruded. I was taking the History of Hungarians Jews model and was looking for info and writting it. You are simply doing a police-like job rather than administrate. A note and possible guidlenes on writting it would have been nice. You are way off-track in what you're doing.
Wikipedia should not contain copyright violations, period. Not just "temporarily", not in the page history, that's the Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#What should I do if I find a copyright violation on Wikipedia?. bogdan 14:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
why then did I have to go look for who placed it on copyright infringement?because you are too incomptent to administrate,not police-around. You attempt on my good-faith in writing this. That still doesn't excuse you.period
Please also see: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you. :-) bogdan 18:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok.Fair enough:)ciao
All pages you find on the internet are by default copyrighted. They don't have to write "(C) Copyright...". Information indeed cannot be copyrighted, but you didn't copied information but a text, which is copyrighted. Copying information means reading a text and rewriting it with your own words. bogdan 13:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I cited my source just as the jewis community website.it is stated above the chronolgy that the article is taken from:"From the History Museum of the Romanian Jews; Hasefer Publishing House " I did just that. Plus I was in the process of editing it and gathering more information. That is complete nonsense of you.
Please read Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. bogdan 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arvantovlaxika

Hey, you want to help me here? I suspect most of the information in fact belongs in Aromanian language, and very little will be left that is specifically for this variety. Thanks to "Bonaparte", I now have to deal with this...Alexander 007 18:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And the freakin' title of the article isn't even correct...Alexander 007 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Take 1.jpg

I'm wondering about the license tag you put on Image:Take 1.jpg. This would require that the person who took the photo had been dead for 100 years, which seems relatively unlikely. - Jmabel | Talk 04:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the picture is about 100 years old... hm... Why doesn't the tag say 70 years, like it is in almost all countries ? bogdan 12:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)