User talk:Dahn/Archive 24

Hey

Happy new year! Please check out my comment at Talk:Eugen Rozvan (which is a great article by the way). Thanks, Khoikhoi 02:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The Hungarian name for "Eugene" is Jenő, which I believe it pronounced "yenner". Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's quick pronunciation guide to some letters (Hungarian letters first, English sound second):

A = uh (as in "duh")

Á = ah (as in "Papa")

s = sh (as in "shut up")

sz = s (as in "snake")

zs = ge (as in the 2nd "g" in "garage")

cs = ch (as in "chat")

As for the y vs yi, I'm not sure, you might try asking one of the editors from Hungary. No problem for the FAC, hopefully it'll pass. Cheers, Khoikhoi 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Alexandru Nicolschi , was selected for DYK!

On January 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexandru Nicolschi , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Tismăneanu

I have decided to protect the articles instead, and warned Icar for calling you a "vandahl". Cheers, Khoikhoi 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx!

Thanks! --Free smyrnan 23:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:RO

Replied there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Again :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much - I'm deeply humbled, and I appreciate the award. And Happy New Year to you as well.

As for the Lupu/Goma business: you make some rather compelling points. As I tried to make clear, I don't consider the Wiesel findings to be fantasy - but I do think it's imperative that we be able to discuss, dissect, question and contradict them (where justified, of course) without the chilling spectres of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism being raised. Naturally, some opponents of Wiesel are hardened Holocaust deniers and/or anti-Semites, in which case calling them that is acceptable, but at least some measure of good faith should be assumed, and when Lupu denies being an anti-Semite, I see no reason not to take his word for it, absent hard evidence to the contrary.

The only point of yours with which I must take issue is this: I don't see it as a contradiction to assert both that "No one is indispensable" and that "we need all the contributors we can get". Allow me to demonstrate. Let's say (hypothetically) that we have twelve active, reliable contributors on Romania-related subjects. If we lost any one of these twelve, solid work on such subjects would continue, meaning that not one of the twelve is indispensable. But at the same time, it would be a great pleasure to have twenty-four, or forty-eight, or a hundred such contributors. We may not absolutely need them, but their addition would be very useful.

Anyway, moving on. What do you think of the little debate at the bottom of Talk:Traian Băsescu? Biruitorul 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is rather intriguing - do you have any more information on it? As is, it's a little too small to translate. Biruitorul 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the link is here, and it does seem useful. Biruitorul 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

imagine

Vreau să vă mulţumesc frumos că după 2 minute mi-aţi şters o modificare pe care am făcut-o. Cu această ocazie, am avut nevoie să o mai scriu odată. Nu aţi mai avut două clipe de răbdare ca să introduc imaginea. Frumos gest din partea dvs. Cezarika1 10:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vă mulţumesc şi pentru redimensionarea imaginii. Astăzi nu se mai poartă discuţii cum e mai bine, se procedează direct după voia fiecăruia. Parcă nu sunteţi administrator. Cezarika1 11:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Poate dvs. vedeţi bine, dar eu port ochelari. A mă obliga să mă chiorăsc (ăsta-i termenul) la o fotografie nu e un lucru frumos. Puteţi să-mi spuneţi că îi pot da click să o văd la dimensiunea originală, dar dacă tipăresc articolul e greu de distins.

Judecaţi şi din punctul meu de vedere. În ziare, fotografiile nu sunt reduse la dimensiune, ci sunt puse după un anumit standard care să permită vizualizarea lor fără să afecteze ochii. Vă mulţumesc. Cezarika1 11:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Amicii URSS

...article is a great initiative. very interesting reading. can you see in your sources what was the name of the international body it was affiliated to? That organization should have an article of its own. --Soman 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On January 11, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ovidiu Pecican, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Put the star!

Put the star in Regulamentul Organic. It is FA! It passed! Hurry, because I'll put it otherwise! And congratulations!--Yannismarou 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just put this template {{featured article}} at the end of the article just before the categories. It will do the job! The decision is taken by Raul, who is the FA director (he is also an administrator and arbitrator). He is the only person competent to assess whether consensus has been reached or not in a FAC. In this case, he decided that consensus was there, and the article should be promoted to FA status. Since he confirmed FA status in the talk page of the article, you can put the star. As a matter of fact, it is regarded an honor preserved for the main editor of a recently promoted FA article to put the star.--Yannismarou 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not big deal who will put the star! Well, I see you are on fire!! Me, I just have plans, dreams and a lot of work for my next FA, after this one! Cheers!--Yannismarou 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cetatenia

In orice tara te duci, nimeni nu-ti da cetatenia imediat. Asa ca nu mai te plange absurd ca lui wiesel i s-a retras cetatenia. Normal ca nefiind roman, nestiind romaneste trebuia sa facva cerere sa o obtina asa cum face toata lumea! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.77.7.240 (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Un comentariu jenant prin semicdoctismul sau, de la stiu-foarte-bine-cine. Cand ti se retrage cetatenia, prietene, inseamna ca ti s-au retras drepturile civile, impotriva legilor in vigoare (nimeni dn cei care obtin cetatenia prin nastere nu trebuie sa dea vreun examen). Deci, ceea ce spui tu nu are absolut nici un sens. Si nici macar nu era vorba de Wiesel insusi, ci de toti evreii din Romania. Tolle, lege. Dahn 10:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Puti de la o posta. Se vede ca esti un jidan imputit. Lasa ca la viitorul holocaust ai un loc in fata boratule! Asta sa o lasi ca nu e maculatura! Cacat alterat! As face sapun din tine, dar carnea de jidan e imputita si nu se poate face sapun!

The message just above translates as: "You stink from far away. One can tell you are a stinking kike. Never mind, there's a place in front for you at the next holocaust you regurgitated thing you! You'll leave this message [on your page], as it is not maculature! You altered shit! I would make soap out of you, but you kike meat is stinking and unsuitable for soap!".

I will not leave this message here for long, as it is demeaning wikipedia itself. However, I will leave it here for as long as it is necessary: that it to say, until it is brought to the attention of bureaucrats and administrators that such scum, with such takes on the world, are virtually unsanctioned on the Romanian version of wikipedia (where I myself have chosen not to participate, for several reasons).

If anyone is interested: I am not Jewish. Nay. I received these remarks not for supporting Jewishness, but for supporting decency, and for supporting the truth about Romania's participation in the Holocaust, about the idiocy of identifying communism with "Jewish subversion", and about the untenable arguments of all morons who have not yet realized what the truth is.

You will note that the piece of garbage above also exposes the hypocrisy of neofascist political soldiers: such persons have the nerve to deny out front the mass murders that they secretly celebrate. "It never happened, and it should happen again". Dahn 19:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Wikipedia

Please see my reply here: User_talk:Jmabel#Link to one of your comments. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Various

Congratulations on reaching FA status! Allow me to draw your attention to Communist Romania if it hasn't been drawn already - first, I find most of Anonimu's latest edit to be highly dubious; second, is the template at the top not highly misleading? As far as I know, the RPR - RSR change was trivial; Communist Romania (as indicated by the fact that the article itself goes up to the Revolution), of course, lasted till 1989. Biruitorul 19:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I will let you know. His edit was not entirely unjustified, so I've ruled out a simple revert, but his changes will need some close examination, which either one of us will be giving some time in the near future. By the way, Dacodava has (according to himself) quit ro.wiki, but perhaps he continues to edit anonymously. Biruitorul 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And it's not just him, of course. Here's a passage from their article on Horia Sima, for instance:

Pregătirile de război trebuiau să decurgă în condiţii bune. Aşa că ML a lăsat în mâna lui Antonescu ministerele ce reprezentau armata, justiţia, finanţele cât şi serviciile secrete, deşi la conducerea lor se afla un duşman mare al legionarilor: Eugen Cristescu. Legionarii au dat astfel dovadă de sacrificiu în plan politic pentru că interesele ţării erau mai importante decât cele ale Gărzii de Fier. De fapt niciodată ML nu a avut alte scopuri decât acelea ale patriei. Dar generalul Antonescu nu a fost capabil să înţeleagă aşa ceva. El s-a îmbătat cu ideea că a ajuns conducătorul ţării datorită unor merite personale deosebite. Biruitorul 20:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On Rowiki

For future reference, this pairs up nicely with this section: User talk:Gutza#On Rowiki.

Ok, I have to admit that me and Wikipedia have pretty much parted ways a while back, therefore I can't offer a proper rebuttal, given that I'm basically out of touch. (We parted ways amicably: life has thrown me on a course which doesn't allow for much free time to spend on the net.) However, I would like to offer a rebuttal on principle, if not on facts.

You say "[admins on Rowiki] all too often lack competence to identify and remove defamatory and fallacious content". I'm pretty certain that's the case. Admins are not chosen for being all-knowing human libraries, they're chosen for being able and willing to be active and dedicated to the project, in a reasonable manner. That's certainly not the ideal situation, but it's the best you can get from volunteers -- that applies both here, and even more so on small Wikipedias, where the user base is much smaller to begin with.

Regarding your a priori rebuttal "what I do here is valuable enough not to have to leave it aside in order to engage in that sordid debate" -- nobody's asking you to police the Romanian Wikipedia. You're a volunteer contributor to the global Wikipedia project, and as a volunteer it would be immoral of the project's organizers (whoever they may be) to tell you what to do, especially if it's against your will. But if you're unhappy about something in the global Wikipedia project, it's immoral of you to complain to peers, in my opinion. Again, nobody's asking you to police or enforce anything -- but if your personal appeals fell of deaf ears, you could've started by addressing the "Elders' Council" there, which is watched by all admins, and if that didn't work, you could've escalated the issue to the International Wikipedia forums. If that didn't work, then yes, you could finally go around and complain to peers, in the hopes of raising awareness about the issue. But before you take those simple steps, which entail almost no hassle at all, I think it's inappropriate to go around telling people how anti-Semitic bastards "roam free" on one Wikipedia or another.

By the way, I didn't write this imagining myself as an administrator on the Romanian Wikipedia who needs to straighten the ways of his sheep, wherever they may be. This is a personal opinion -- I'm aware it's critical of your attitude, but it's only so in a personal manner.

Anyway, if you do have hard data about the accusations you made (because that's what they are, regardless of how you want to call them), I would really be very interested to see it -- and I will try to raise awareness about it in my way, wherever I can.

Cheers,
--Gutza ^{T T+} 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you're willing to have a conversation about the general merits and lack thereof of the Romanian Wikipedia (I am), and if you live in Romania, please give me a call on my cell phone within the hour and I'll return it -- it's much more efficient than debating here. For links and other hard data, please use my talk page. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your last message reads like an assumption of guilt on my part.

First of all, I wish to point out that it does not take expertise to detect blatant racism and unchecked language, nor to enforce wikipedia regulations (it is assumed that admins have understood them when they became admins). There is also no excuse for the repeated support for vandalism on the part of some admins.

Secondly, there is no requirement for me to take whatever steps in order to ensure that guidelines stepped over in such nonchalant manner are enforced, when it is known to me that admins have been watching those pages. Also, as I have tried to point out, if admins have tolerated insults aimed at me by a person who was banned as a vandal and sockpuppeteer on enwiki, Also consider that, in case the matters of racism were not already clear to admins there, you are asking me to basically go and convince them, all of them, that they were wrong! Instead, I am sounding up the alarm with admins who have proven themselves competent. Dahn 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that

• some admins were watching pages which were vandalized (or POV'ed, or whatever)
• hence you have a problem with those admins
• therefore it's not worth letting all of the admins know about it, because
  • given your experience with the admins you have a problem with
  • you don't expect to convince all admins that the ones you feel are acting in bad faith are indeed acting in bad faith,
  • because you were unsuccessful in proving the ones who act in bad faith that they themselves are acting in bad faith.

I might have not understood it properly, but if I did, it doesn't seem to make much sense. That would be akin to not suing criminals because you can't expect the jury to accept their guilt, given that they themselves haven't accepted they were guilty. But isn't that what trials are for? --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately I have to leave soon, and I'll be away from the keyboard throughout the week-end. I would have wanted to know more about this (hence the phone offer), but unfortunately I can't spend much time here now (which explains my being out of touch with Wikipedia).

At any rate, thank you for the information -- and I'll be sure to come back for more, time permitting, until I can form an opinion on the scope of your dissatisfaction with Rowiki.

Cheers,
--Gutza ^{T T+} 20:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The phone conversation offer still stands (you know where to get it) -- I just can't use the keyboard any more. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm very far from being a scholar on WWII (and the pre- and post-war context), so I seem to be one of those admins on Rowiki who are unable to recognize a problem when they see it. Among the articles you listed, the only topic I'm reasonably familiar with is Codreanu. And while I can see some problems with the article as it stands (e.g. "Legionarii au asasinat doi prim-ministri in functiune [...], un fost prim-ministru [...] si mai multi fosti ministri [...] fiecare avand cate o vina."), the biggest problem that I see is what it's missing, not what it contains. Regarding ro:Evrei comunişti, I don't know whether you have a problem with the concept of having such an article at all, or with the data it contains. Having such an article at all doesn't seem to violate any policies to me -- but I lack the knowledge on the topic to judge its contents.

On a different train of thoughts, I'd like to assess the scope of your claims: is the dubious quality of WWII-related topics your only reason for willing to have rowiki started anew? --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The "Evrei list", as you call it, is created with a certain goal in mind only if you assign it that specific role. The way I see it, it has equal "rights" to a list of American Liberals, or Russian Democrats, or Israeli Liberals -- it's just a list. But let me emphasize that I'm only judging your questioning its existence per se as an article -- if the data it contains is indeed phantasmagoric, as you put it, then I'm by all means for reviewing it. Again, please don't hold it against me that I'm not for summary deletion based on content: I simply do not have the expertise to make a judgment on it. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dacodava

Thanks, I've blocked 82.77.7.239 (talk · contribs) and 82.77.7.240 (talk · contribs) for one week. Upon looking at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dacodava, it is highly likely that it's him. Firstly, notice the limited IP range (82.77.7.xxx), which is located in Bacău. Also compare the very similar use of edit summaries (i.e. "discution", "m", etc.) here, here, here, and here. Note that Dacodava is indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia for personal attacks. If someone does a CheckUser on Daos (talk · contribs), they will probably be able to confirm him as well. Regards, Khoikhoi 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to tell you that this is the same anon from Iuga of Moldavia and Bogdan I of Moldavia, when I discovered another IP: 82.77.7.133. Check out his comment on April 16:

Do you want to make from Jews another kind of super people? That is not the right solution! And I am not afraid of you and your propaganda! Dacodava [1]

And this one on December 4:

It is not your job to tell me what to learn! I know myself which is my level in English. You just wanted to hurt me saying that and it was an attack. Daos [2]

Case closed. :-) Khoikhoi 05:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

list of people from iasi

So what is the problem with the categories? With my patchy culture I still don't think that all the jews that just had a life are worthy to be in the list of personalities from Iasi. There are jew people with great mindes, but no one in the list meets any criteria for personality. Maybe we should put all the professors from Iasi in the list also, because the persons I deleted had no major contribution for Iasi or Romania.

I know I didn't deleted any jew on the list, but maybe you should do it. From your comments your culture must be extensive, so I don't understand why are they in the same place with Palade?

And who is Mihai Gheorghiu Bujor? Any real contribution? From what I could found on google he was a nobody. Care to give me a reason why he should be on the list? The same for others I removed.

And if you think that the remarks I put for each one is wrong or not completed, why delete and not correct it? This is your solution for incomplete data? From your list I could see that you have major contributions to wikipedia, but also that you think that, somehow, it belongs to you. The articles must be how YOU want them to look without giving any reason.

I realy think that the categories are a good idea if the list is so big. For this point I really want a reason why it's wrong. And by category I mean: Music, Literature, etc.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cristi.falcas (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Amicii URSS, was selected for DYK!

On January 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amicii URSS, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 15:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Dahn, there's been an edit war going on at Romania: there's this version by Anonimu, and then this version by Kamenaua (talk · contribs) and his friends. I'm not sure if you're interested, but if you are, can you please make a comment on the talk page? What do you think of the two versions? Khoikhoi 08:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your approach. BTW, Wallachia looks like it can definately be an FA... I'll apply it for GA for now if you don't mind. Khoikhoi 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean Anittas? If the info is unsourced, just remove it per this email. Boogie down. Khoikhoi 08:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, did I add the {{not verified}} tag in the right place? Khoikhoi 09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Românii din Serbia şi Bulgaria

As vrea sa văd DOVADA că "vlahii" din Bulgaria şi Serbia sunt aromâni şi nu daco-români. Vreau să-mi explici revert-ul pe care l-ai făcut aici: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&diff=100712564&oldid=100709897 Eu m-am exprimat foarte clar înprivinţa acestor aşa-zişi vlahi, specificând faptul că în Bulgaria este vorba de daco-români şi de aromâni deopotrivă (poate te ajută şi acest articol). În privinţa Serbiei am indicat denumirea sârbească cu care s-au identificat daco-românii (34,576 de persoane drept "rumunji" şi 40,054 persoane drept "vlasi"), deoarece autodefinirea în limba maternă este una cu totul alta ("români" sau "rumâni"). Altfel decât în Bulgaria, aromâni practic NU EXISTĂ în Serbia. Termenul de "vlah" poate denumi atât un daco-român (în cazul în care limba sa maternă este cea (daco-)română, cât şi un aromân (în cazul în care limba sa maternă este cea aromână). Articolul Romanians defineşte automat termenul de "vlah" ca fiind automat sinonim cu "aromân", ceea ce este O ABERAŢIE. Dacă nu poţi să explici revert-ul pe care l-ai întreprins la adresa contribuţiei mele înseamnă că ai vandalizat articolul. --Olahus 08:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nici statul sarb, nici cel bulgar nu a pus vreodata semnul de egalitate între vlahi şi aromâni. Vlahii sunt conform statului sârb (cât şi a celui bulgar) o populaţie romanică nedeterminabilă (sau nedeterminată), deci poate fi (teoretic) vorba atât de daco-români, cât şi de aromâni. Pe de altă parte însă, ambele în ambele state istoricii consideră că vlahii sunt persoane emigrate din Valahia în cursul secolului XVIII (istoricii români îi privesc drept urmaşii populaţiei romanice din fosta provincie romană "Dacia Ripensis"). Însă, în momentul în care ei fac această afirmaţie reconosc automat faptul ca vlahii din Serbia şi din nordul Bulgariei sunt daco-români.

Dahn, Wikipedia este o enciclopedie, nu un instrument politic sârbesc, românesc sau bulgăresc. Argumentele ştiinţifice TREBUIE să aibă prioritate în calea celor politice. --Olahus 13:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard Wurmbrand

As you seem to be the main contributor to this page, please check my note in the discussion.merryXIV 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Poze din Iaşi

I-am trimis un email lui Adrian Moisei care are pagina http://www.romaniantrip.net/ cu rugamintea daca poate sa ofere o parte din pozele de pe site-ul lui pt wikipedia. In mare a fost de acord si chiar incantat. As vrea sa fac forward la email catre tine, deoarece sunt sigur ca poti sa-i raspunzi la intrebarile care le are mult mai competent, in special legate de licenta sub care trebuie oferite. Daca esti de acord, asta e adresa mea: cristi.falcas @ gmail.com.

Nu stiu ce sa-i spun la problema asta: As prefera sa fie link-uri spre cele doua site-uri www.adrianmoisei.com - site-ul fotografului si www.romaniantrip.net.

Din cate am vazut se pot pune linkuri la descierea pozelor, dar nu stiu sigur daca e voie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cristi.falcas (talk • contribs) 09:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Vintila

Re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vintila Barbu - is this settled, as far as you are concerned? If so, I'll archive it. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hermannstadt/Sibiu - bilingual? Yes!

Hermannstadt/Sibiu is officially bilingual. This fact is not only evidenced by the use of the name "Hermannstadt" on the town sign aswell as on the city's official website http://www.sibiu.ro/, where Hermannstadt is written under or behind "Sibiu" at nearly every occasion, but also in Harald Roth's book "Hermannstadt. Kleine Geschichte einer Stadt in Siebenbürgen." (2006, ISBN 3-412-05106-3) (Translated: "Hermannstadt. Short history of a city in Siebenbürgen."). This book is also referenced on the German Wikipedia where the passage "Germans in Hermannstadt/Sibiu" also mentions the bilingualism of the city. Mh, I'll have a blueberry pie :p --BlueMars 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Belated reply

On January 4, you asked me a question that I only just noticed. The answer is visible in the edit summary: my edit was not of a substantive nature and did not reflect endorsement of either competing version. Biruitorul 04:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! By the way, if and when you take a look at Bucharest student movement of 1956, let me make three remarks on it: 1) It needs a lead section. 2) It's mostly a direct translation from ro.wiki, and I didn't look at the Tismăneanu report or other sources myself, but I imagine that might be useful, particularly as in-line references would be good to have. 3) The last section is of dubious value compared to the rest. Feel free to change it radically or even cut it. Biruitorul 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Take your time - there's no rush. And I look forward to it getting peppered by {{cn}} tags in, oh, a few hours. But may I ask, you're calling it "Romanian general election, 1946", correct? Because our links all point there. As for the copyright matter, I will try to see what Afil says. Biruitorul 20:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds right. If you look at Template:Romanian elections, I've somewhat arbitrarily called elections up to 1946 "general" and since then "legislative" - though I suspect that at least some of the earlier elections were just for the Senate, or just for the lower house, but right now I have no way of knowing for sure. I suppose we'll just have to muddle through with some sort of consensus until more definitive information on those elections emerges. Biruitorul 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So was the part of the 1923 Constitution dealing with the Senate ignored in 1946? I suppose you treat this question in your article. Biruitorul 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Faster than a speeding bullet... Biruitorul 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes! On a slightly related note, all this awaits translation. Biruitorul 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. Of course, respect for copyright has never been a high priority on ro.wiki. Biruitorul 21:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.  ;) Anonimu 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I like that analogy. Granted, a few people do very good work there - see this - but most of the jewels one finds there are indeed covered with several layers of dust, cobwebs, even manure. Biruitorul 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't have everything, can we? By the way, he's performed his hatchet job against my latest article... Biruitorul 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Italian communist stuff

Ciao! Do you have time to check my articles on Oreste Scalzone, Franco Piperno, Primavalle Fire and Battle of Valle Giulia? Thanks in advance and good work. --Attilios 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel (Popp)

Hello. I reverted the page move you performed because the standard Orthodox practice is to not refer to bishops/metropolitans by their surname. The surname is put in parentheses to avoid potential confusion. I will restore the other edits you made to the article, but wanted to move it back to the proper name first. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you look on http://www.roea.org/bio-nathaniel.htm, you will see they place his birth surname in parentheses. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)