User talk:Bogdangiusca/Archive11

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

I'm new to wikipedia, and run into a problem that is too big for a newbie. The article in question is Sea People and concerns possible vanity/advertising issues, a self-written bio (elswhere on wp) and general self pimping...

But I might be all wrong. I didn't post/edit anything yet and I would like to talk it over with you first (as a fellow Bucharest dweller :)). Couldn't find a way to e-mail you, though, so if you could be so kind and e-mail me instead (possibly from a "fresh" account as to protect your privacy), I would be most greatful.

Cheers, merry (really) 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs in history.

Could you please add a sentence in the article regarding when he was Mayor of Bucharest? I cannot seem to find the precise dates. Dahn 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mayor of Bucharest (I got that from a list published in some newspaper), he was between November 1870 and January 1871. bogdan 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dahn 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, but I have two points:

Why delete before an edit is put through? (referencing the word phyxtion)? 1. According to [1], the fourth Catargiu Cabinet took office on 29 December 1891, but you have him becoming State Property Minister in that Cabinet on 27 November. This might be a simple Old/New calendar issue, but even so, 27 November is 9 December on the New calendar, still leaving us 20 days short.

2. Again according to [2], Manu was never Prime Ministerm despite what you claim. Biruitorul 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but according to Conservative Party (Romania, 1880-1918) and the book I used as source, he was a Prime Minister. :-) bogdan 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess, as a project, we should work toward cleaning up this situation, determining which dates are on what calendar (in articles about Manu and other Regat politicians), also fixing that list of PMs, and eventually adding the full panoply of infoboxes and succession boxes that currently only the articles on Năstase and Tăriceanu have, plus a template à la [3]. Your book might be a good starting point, and perhaps a message on our noticeboard would spur further activity. Biruitorul 00:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a template here. I've worked off the list I linked to above, so the data is probably slightly corrupt and it needs tweaking. Nevertheless, if you like the general idea, I'll start including it in all the Romanian PMs' articles. Biruitorul 02:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMs from Barbu Catargiu to the 3rd cabinet of Ion Brătianu were not "of the Kingdom of Romania", but of the United Principalities of Romania. That means you have to divide Ion Brătianu's third cabinet in half - first one for the Principalities, second one for the Kingdom. Dahn 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll do that within a day, unless someone else takes up the task. Biruitorul 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I have no idea what kind of flag you'd use for the United Principalities. There's the one here, but that only covers Cuza. Carol used a vertical tricolour, with a crest divided in half (Mold. and Wall., with the Dobruja dolphins, and prolly with Oltenia - not sure how on Earth they were arranged - and I'm not sure he used the white/black/black/white inescutcheon of the Hohenzollerns until becoming king...). We need info on that, and a lot of work on the Flag of Romania page. Dahn 12:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources appear to be prone on spreading bullshit: "După 1859 (an când Ţara Românească si Moldova s-au unit într-un singur stat) s-a pus problema unei steme reprezentative. În anul 1863 a fost găsita soluţia reunirii simbolurilor tradiţionale ale Ţării Românesti (vulturul de aur cruciat) si Moldovei (bourul cu stea între coarne). Ulterior, în 1872, comisia naţională de heraldică a propus o stemă rezultată din combinarea simbolurilor tradiţionale ale tuturor provinciilor românesti: Ţara Românească, Moldova, Bucovina, Transilvania, Maramures, Crisana, Banat si Oltenia. Stema a fost adoptată de Guvernul României si s-a aflat în uz până în 1921 când, în urma Marii Uniri de la 1 Decembrie 1918, a fost creată noua stemă a României Mari, prin adăugarea simbolurilor instituite în 1872: însemnele Casei de Hohenzollern (casa regală europeană care-si are originile în zorile Evului Mediu)."[4] The info about when the inescutcheon was added is valuable, but I have huge doubts about Transylvania, Banat, Maramures etc. having been added to the coa of a country in strong alliance with the Central Powers. Dahn 12:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

worldstatesmen lists 3 flags for the period. the pre-1872 have symbols only from moldavia (2nd and 3rd quartering) and wallachia(1st and 4th quarter), while the post 1872 have also lion (in the 3rd quarter probably for oltenia, although in the current CoA is for Oltenia and Banat) and two dolphins( in the 4th quarter, for the Danube, later for Dobruja). Also the supporters are changed. And both have H-S inescutcheonAnonimu 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This info needs to be edited in the articles in the future, and we should prolly start work on editing detailed flags (I personally cannot edit something that exact - I'm just learning to work in svg, which is the best extension to use). I also propose that the final version (post-1872) be used as the main symbol for the United Principalities of Romania references, and the very first, horizontal flag, be used for the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Dahn 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I suggest moving the info that absurdly sits at the top of the Kingdom of Romania page to the bottom of the Danubian Principalities one, and redirect all "United... of..." forms to the latter. We'll add a "Main article: Thisun" at the top of the "early" sections of Danubian Principalities, and develop the info about Cuza and a young Carol in a final section. Tell me what you think. Dahn 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't deleted, as you may or may not have heard elsewhere, so I'm canvassing opinions for what to rename it to/merge it to on its relevant talk page. All reasonable suggestions will be entertained. BigHaz 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently protected[5] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 09:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan, I enriched Stephane Lupasco but I would like an expert advice. Do you know someone qualified in logic or can you take a look at this? Thanks,--dio 12:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The nationalist website is just hosting the map, they're not the authors or anything. The map is perfectly OK, it's reliable and used in many other sources. I also checked in a history book of mine (printed 1995, ISBN 954-426-099-4), which confirms the borders from the period. What exactly bothers you with the map? The extent to the north?

Actually, all of Romania and eastern Hungary were added to the Bulgarian Empire during the rule of Krum (796/803-814), who crushed the Avar Khaganate together with Charlemagne, and conquered these territories. Since these lands were not particularly well-organized and at all vastly populated then, the only trouble were the barbarian invasions from Asia (Magyars, Pechenegs and later Cumans) and the Kievan campaigns. As the article Romania in the Early Middle Ages says, Bulgarian control over the former Dacia "would last between 802 and 1018". Todor→Bozhinov 16:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian Empire simply went in a couple of military expeditions in there, they crushed the enemies and went home. They did not governed those territories, or at least there is no evidence they did. bogdan 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did they really? Then who spread the "Slavic" language as a liturgical language in these lands? How did the predecessors of the Romanians get Christianized? Is that enough in terms of evidence? Besides, who do you think governed those territories when it wasn't the Bulgarian Empire? Come on, that's silly and revisionist. Todor→Bozhinov 17:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... You are slightly wrong:

First of all, the predecessors of Romanians got Christianized using the Latin language. The most basic Romanian words related to Christianity are inherited from Latin, not from Greek nor from Slavic:

Boteza < Batizare (Baptize); Paşte < Pascere (Easter); Dumnezeu < Dominus Deus ([Christian] God); Preot < Presbiterum (Priest); Biserică < Basilica (Church), etc

Then, Orthodoxism and Slavic as the liturgical language were adopted at the earliest in the 11th/12th century. How can we tell that? Simple, there is no archaeological evidence of any earlier Orthodox churches.

Also, that's not "revisionist". The mainstream history says that the region was inhabited by Romanians, who lived in the mountains and some valleys and various "barbarians" (Avars, Cumans, Pechenegs, etc) in the plains. Simply, there is no evidence of a Bulgarian administration. bogdan 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any archaeological evidence of Romanians practicing Christianity after the Roman Empire, but prior to the Bulgarian control of the region? That would be interesting. Also, could you please give any details regarding this 11th/12th century adoption of Orthodoxy and the Slavic language? I'm very curious how that would have happened with today's Romania controlled by various barbarian tribes (certainly not having much to do with Christianity) in the period.

Also, the Romania in the Early Middle Ages article says "By the 10th century, the Wallachs (exonym of the Romanians) both north and south of the Danube, after having long remained faithful to the Greek ritual, had adopted the Slavonic liturgy and became subject to the metropolitan at Ohrid, the Bulgarian capital.", and cites an early 11th-century source that clearly evidences the Romanians were Orthodox by then. Thus, they were converted to Orthodoxy in the Bulgarian Empire.

I'm not sure in what form the Bulgarian Empire controlled the lands north of the Danube, but it certainly did. Peter I of Bulgaria is mentioned to have faced Magyar raids in these areas and later to have allowed Magyar tribes to settle as federates, later Samuil is also evidenced to have reigned over Wallachia. Todor→Bozhinov 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the whole religion issue is off-topic on this case, as this might be cultural influence. I'm just asking for a reference which gives proofs of a Bulgarian administration in that land. If you don't have any proof, then it's just a wild speculation. bogdan 19:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt it was a cultural influence and provided enough evidence in the last two paragraphs of my last reply, as well as generally. An indirect reference is the 11th-century charter of Basil II to Samuil, and I'm sure there are other (maybe you should refer to User:Imladjov, he's an expert in the subject). The international science uniformly treats these lands as part of Bulgaria, so does the Romanian science (as I see), then what exactly are we disputing? Todor→Bozhinov 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bogdan, it is entirely plausible that Bulgarian vassals of some sort clashed with the Magyars when the latter entered Transylvania (I think Xenopol argued that Gelou was one). What I suggest is a new map, where the regions north of the Danube would be hachured in the same color as Bulgaria and the color of, well, nothing. Who's gonna do it? Dahn 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the vassals were only in Western Transylvania and we have no data about the rest of Romania/Moldova. Anyway, I guess a hachured map would be better: one with northern border no so precisely set, because we don't know it exactly. :-) bogdan 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. From what I know, claims on both sides have speculated that the Bulgarian territory extended further than Western Transylvania (as I note, so does even our Greier-produced article - and that means that even the ultras have little problem with awknowleding that it may have had :)), A hachured map with your specifications would be the best deal. What do you say, Todor? Dahn 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw. Todor: let's not turn an uncertain situation into one version of jingoism or another. Awright? Most of what you provided about "Bulgarian spoken in Wallachia" is actually about Church Slavonic, at a stage when Bugarian was slowly emerging as its own language - I know it is a habit of Bulgarian sources to take over Church Slavonic patrimony, but that is is just clumsy (especially since the language was used in Moldavia as well). Furthermore, even if it were Bulgarian (and it is pure sophistry to say that it was), drawing the conclusion that "Bulgarian-speakers" were "Bulgarian ethnics", aside from all the absurdity of assigning ethnicities in the Middle Ages, would imply that all people using Latin in Medieval Europe were members of Latin peoples! Dahn 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait, wait, what jingoism, I've never said these things. And furthermore you're confusing terms. I've never said Bulgarian was spoken in Wallachia as a vernacular (although people claim this and they've got some reasonable points) by the Romanians. I've also never said there was a substantial Bulgarian population in these lands then. And note that Old Bulgarian had already emerged and shaped in the period (this is the Bulgarian recension of Old Church Slavonic that was spread among the Romanians). Don't confuse Old Church Slavonic with Church Slavonic, which is a later East-Slavicized version of it).

Actually, those Romanians who expressed themselves in writing used Church Slavonic primordially. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I have seen Bulgarian contributors telling me that Romanian developed in a Bulgarian-speaking area etc. Dahn 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the hachures suggestion, I see no reason to have Romania hachured and the rest not — Simeon and the other tsars had many parts of the empire locally ruled by governors/vassals, that's why it's an empire. What is today Romania was not more autonomous than any other part of the Bulgarian Empire and it wasn't in any way special to deserve hachures. Todor→Bozhinov 21:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's some obvious reasons: the extension to the north of the Danube should not be hachured because of vassalage, but because it is, for the most part, theoretical, with unspecified and unclear borders, and without clear pointers in time as to when it was factual and when it was not (rather, all we have are separated claims which do not clarify if it was a continuous rule). Add to this that, whereas some scholars agree that it was real, others, based on the same evidence, do not - I am not referring to nationalists in Romania, which deny it on principle, but to people involved in actual research). If something is relative, we should point it out as relative - I think the case is much clearer for all other areas ruled by the Bulgarians at the time. Let's build a bridge, dude: consider that the alternative is a an un-academic quagmire, with pages contributed by Romanians claiming that it did not happen at all, and pages contributed by Bulgarians exaggerating on the basis of vagueries. We have a chance to actually do something for the readers, and not for our respective catered audiences. Dahn 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't convincing. I'm not an expert on the subject, and I'm not aware of the Bulgarian rule over the region being denied by the international science. As I said, you should refer to User:Imladjov, who is an expert on the subject and will be hopefully able to explain things better. Until then, I'd avoid referring to anything as "academic" and "unacademic". That the Romanian science sometimes denies something and the Bulgarian always supports it doesn't necessarily mean the truth somewhere in the middle. In fact, I'd be more than happy to hear a number of external opinions, plus that of Ian Mladjov. Todor→Bozhinov 10:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me read this to you again, Todor. I have pointed out that, even if the rule would be certain, its limits and continuity would have to be debatable (simply because all evidence about present-day Romania tended to be decades apart). I had thus not said that the truth is "somewhere in the middle": I do not establish truth, and nobody could on the basis of this little evidence. What I had asked you to consider is not that Romanian scientists deserve to manipulate knowledge, but that the knowledge itself is not certain! That is to say (and I repeat myself): a hachure does not indicate a compromise between historians for the sake of letting Romanians have a field day, but an indication that, although a Bulgarian presence is very likely to have been the case, proof of it is not definite and continuity cannot be established (much of the evidence you Todor, for one, presented is speculatory in nature - the difference between hachure and full colour is the difference between recorded testimony and speculation). Dahn 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award bogdan this Barnstar for his thorough rewrite of Aleksander Schinas, better than anything I believed possible. Great job! Huon 10:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bogdan. You said Schinas called the greek people his countrymen. Could you please help me finding where he has said that? Thanks --J. Cosmos 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the third image given here. Schinas is cited talking about "3,000,000 of his countrymen in Greece". And I doubt he speaks of "his Macedonian countrymen in Greece", especially as he said so while living in New York, before the annexation of (parts of) Macedonia. Yours, Huon 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you at Talk:Aleksander Schinas. bogdan 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please move Basarab dynasty to House of Basarab? The latter term is more accurate: they were not precisely a dynasty (no father-son lineage in an elective monarchy). Dahn 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. bogdan 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You rock. Dahn 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently protected[6] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sal bogdan, i want to move the article Vlad III the Impaler to Vlad III of Wallachia, but the name already exists, and it says an admin should do the move. I think Stephen III of Moldavia is a good model for Vlad III Criztu 18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but right now I'm preparing to leave in holiday and I don't have enough time to see what is the dispute about. Maybe you should ask User:FrancisTyers to help you reach a consensus. bogdan 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you move like this?;

Frankfurter Judengasse > User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/Frankfurter Judengasse

--Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 11:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Dahn 21:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. bogdan 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But ... but ... I am extinct in the wild ... ah, forget it, you're probably right. --M@rēino 01:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bogdan, I've gotten into a conflict with a user about a Romanian guy's name. Please see Talk:Cezar Bădiţă. He argues that the page should be at "Cezar Badita" because most English sources spell it that way, but "most sources" spell it without the diacritics because they can't due to technical limitations. He's also saying "note also that, there are no diacritics in the English Wikipedia article title of Romania", which I think is absuard. Could you help me by joining-in on the discussion? Thanks! —Khoikhoi 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually block the vandal...:)))) Coyote you should stop begging help from others. You are abasing yourself :)))))

and you ask the help from a Romanian...you hungarian jew...

You may have noticed that an IP is having a field day on that article. Please inform the person on the existance of bans. Thank you. Dahn 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your help to calm a revert war with 194.117.231.39 about the article on the WW2 Romanian leader, Ion Antonescu. Originally I just tried to correct typos and reword a few phrases [7] but then I realised that there was quite "unusual" POVs in the article. A few edits later and I'm into a discussion that I would prefer to avoid. I'd like your considered opinion on the comments highlighted in the Talk page of the article (section 19). I'm quite happy to have some facts in the article. friedfish 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan, the IP who keeps doing that hides behind some disgusting sophistry, chiefly relying on Dragan's "works" (obviously, not only biased, but unprofessional, unsourced, and unlikely eye-witness-like). Besides that, he or she introduces another layer of POV, his or her own, leaving aside that he or she is painfully unaware of spelling rules in English. Probably all the text he or she added is sneaky and shameful historical revisionism: the issue of reverting the page and keeping an eye on it has become crucial for wikipedia's credibility and sheer common sense. Dahn 08:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is FA Review, on the verge of going into FARC. We wonder whether you're able to help reference the text. Tony 08:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete my pages when I am in the middle of writing them, now I have to redo them. RichardColgate 12:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, I recommend you reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Stub pages.

If you want to create a stub on a person, try doing it in this format:

"Mike Vibert is the Minister for Education in the Channel Islands."

Otherwise, it would not be considered an article and it would be deleted.

Also, I recommend you to read the Wikipedia:No personal attacks page. Continuing to insult other Wikipedia contributors would likely get you permanently banned from editing. Thank you. bogdan 12:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bună. I have two points on unrelated subjects. The first is that, as I noted on the template's talk page, the Nature parks link leads to Protected areas of Croatia on Template:Protected areas of Romania ; I don't know the page where it should lead, but that should be corrected.

I redirected to National park. It's not quite the same, but it's better than the Croatia link. Eventually, we should have an article on "nature park", but I have no idea which is the difference between the two. bogdan 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I'm of the opinion that the content from Muslims in Fiji should be moved to Islam in Fiji, as all other articles on Muslims in a particular country are in the format "Islam in ..." Or do you think that keeping it there is a better idea? User:Biruitorul 06:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the articles. bogdan 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff was undeleted... --Vladimir Volokhonsky 08:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Mircea Eliade --Peter IBM 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Ahem*! Boni, puh-leeze stop editing that article! I can't see any reason for deleting half of the article! bogdan 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Moldoveanul ? Who is he? --Peter IBM 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he's not one of your many personalities, just like User:Moldoveanu ? bogdan 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag of Image:Kerkyraoldtheatre.jpg. Dr.K. 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For tirelessly generating disambiguation pages on Romanian villages, I award you this barnstar. --Gray Porpoise 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's a rather boring job, but someone has to do it. I guess it would be much more complicated when there'd be more articles. bogdan 22:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wow you are very quick. Also make sure you create the English redirects. The words are Romanian in English just remove the romanian accents so you can search on an english keybooard. Keep up the great work. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will. bogdan 10:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

e.g Malu Roşu - Malu Rosu #redirect [Malu Roşu] This is very important because if you are an English speaker - hundreds of millions of people in world using english keyboard and want info on Romanian village these pages exist thanks to your great work but they won't be accessible so they won't show up. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I think I'll use a bot for that. bogdan 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More kudos to you. Your contributions are really making this part of Wikipedia more useful for researchers. Thanks! - Mauco 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent for adding the directs. I wasn't sure if you would. Your work is extemely important because it sets up a geography framework to start articles under. Good work my Romanian friend. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that it was you who moved "Paulesti" to "Păuleşti", in order to conform the name with the proper Romanian spelling. There is a current discussion about moving the article back to its previous name. I thought that you might be interested in joining in. Regards. --Húsönd 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly revert yourself for the time being in Talk:Macedonia (terminology). Sorry for rushing, it seems that I myself had written in the rules that it lasts until tomorrow midnight UTC. Sorry again! •NikoSilver• 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I happened to be looking at your comment at Talk:Păuleşti and noticed you had a diacritic redirect bot - by chance I was just about to start work on much the same thing myself! (except primarily, in the first instance, for Czech articles). How would I go about creating such a bot? - I have AWB and so on. Or would it be better to provide new lists for your existing bot to work on? I would be very grateful for any advice or suggestions you could offer.

Many thanks! Aquilina 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is written in Python using the pywikipedia framework. For using pywikipedia, it is highly recommended to know that language. :-) I think it would be better to send me the lists and I'll give them to my bot. bogdan 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I haven't looked at Python for ages, so I'd better spend a while practising again first! In the meantime, I'll see if I can compile a few lists for the bot to work on.

In the meantime, could you use your admin tools to move Gherăseni back to its correct title (it needs admin intervention)? No prizes for guessing who moved it to Gheraseni (and didn't fix the double redirects). He's been warned on his talkpage and on WP:AN/I several times for this... Aquilina 11:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Aquilina 12:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request for approval was rejected because you already completed your task and have not posted anything to the discussion since. IAR is great at times, but please ask for bot permission before doing it again, otherwise your account will likely be blocked, perhaps permanently. If you'd like to renew discussion, we can reopen your request at any time. Later! -- RM 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my move of Gheraseni also fixed its indexing, as well as ensuring that a redirect would remain even if it were moved back. Your move back did not fix the indexing, but Dahn covered for you. Gene Nygaard 14:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just started investing time in recreating a page I spend hours and hours creating the original version of, for Cradle Technologies, only to get a message that apparently you deleted it yet again and I've only just started to edit it?

What are you doing and why are you doing?

--dez

Wikipedia has some standards for notability and the article must say why this company is notable. There are millions of companies throughout the world, but Wikipedia only lists those which are truely influential. A 71-employees IT services is almost certainly not influential enough. If you believe it is, please read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and try your article to be within those lines. bogdan 09:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did this requirement of "notable" status become god rule? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to be an open source encyclopaedia of everything? It's starting to look like that dream is now being changed to "everything is now really just what 'we feel like allowing?' - That seems to go against what the founders of Wikipedia set out do to?

If you really are going to refuse to allow me to include information about my firm in Wikipedia, then at least return the code I spend time investing in your project so I can load it in another wiki engine myself and host it elsewhere. I can't find the page I created so I can get the code. Interestingly enought you seem to feel that it was fine to have information about the USA firm Cradle Technologies, but when an Australian firm called Cradle Technologies wants to be included, you write it off?

Looks like Wikipedia is going to end up as a dead project if it keeps deleting the investment in time and effort people like me make in adding content, and no this is not a childish snipe, just an observation - you delete enough of people's efforts to support you and you're going to loose our support and end up with nobody interested in adding content but a select few.

That would be sad to see, but then you as an admin will know what your plans are far better than I ever will, and if you've decided to become eletist on what content you're going to allow about companies, so be it, but don't be surprised if we stop advising people to visit Wikipedia to get information about us or other topics.

All the best with the project regardless, but again it's a sad day now that I see an eletist postion on what can and can't make it into the wiki - the original aims have clearly changed.

--dez;

Thanks for you kind words Jeffklib 10:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bogdan! Re: this, can you do that again, please? Just make sure you write the result was to keep the present name for the article! :-) •NikoSilver• 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. bogdan 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, I got confused at some point. :) Dahn 19:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND is not a reason for speedy deletion. Notifying the user would also be seriously appreciated I guess. What is happening to Wikipedia? Guaka 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that again, especially this part:

An article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedy deleted under criterion A7, however.

Your article fell under this criterium. bogdan 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Împreună cu EvilAlex (un tip din Tighina - Transnistria) am creat un articol despre propaganda separatistă a Tiraspolului Heaven of Transnistria. I s-a cerut ştergerea. Te rog ajută-ne să păstrăm articolul, votînd contra ştergerii[8]. Destul s-a şters din articolul principal Transnistria, Wikipedia e plină de propagandă a Tiraspolului, să avem măcar un articol care explică această propagandă--MariusM 18:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bogdan, glad to see you liked the category. I was talking to some folks in #wikipedia-en on IRC about exactly what to name the category... "document" seemed more general; the reason I went with it was stuff like Kafkania pebble, though on second thought I really don't think that one qualifies (plus it may be a fake :) ). Anyway, "manuscript" is better. :) --babbage 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting up and populating Category:Earliest known manuscripts by language. -- Petri Krohn 00:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See. Talk:Village guard system. --Cat out 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I'm having a bit of a problem, because I want to use this #1 image but when I put in "Salute.jpg", I automatically get this #2 image instead. What should I do to get the #1 image instead? Mulţumesc pentru ajutor. Biruitorul 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gata. :-) bogdan 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm outraged! - FrancisTyers · 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this using Google, since it seems that FOTW is having a debate about the image (again). From what I read so far, they claim that the image we use is too dark. Since your in Romania, and the guy who helped me fix the flag image, find out what is going on about the Pantone or CMYK shades, please. Thanks a bunch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what are your objections to me Proposed and speedy deletions?? --Frogsprog 13:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For speedy deletion there are some very clear criteria: WP:CSD. POV or factual inaccuracies are *not* speedy deletion criteria. Prod is for anything else that is not in the criteria, but they're not controversial (anyone who disagrees with the deletion may remove them). If you want, you can nominate them for deletion using the instruction WP:AfD, but most likely they won't be deleted because the subjects deserve an article. bogdan 13:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better idea would be to try to correct the information in them, rather than to delete them. bogdan 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ceausescu helicopter leaving.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 06:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We also have {{Iranian-speaking nations}}, {{Baltic-speaking nations}}, {{Turkic-speaking nations}}, {{Finno-Ugric-speaking nations}}, {{Slavic-speaking nations}} and {{tl|Finno-Ugric states}}. If we delete {{Romanian speaking states}} and your one, then one must be consistent and delete/put these up for tfd as well. --Bob 14:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that those are language families, while the other two are languages. Those two were created for trolling. bogdan 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foarte bune comentariile tale la discuţiile paginii Transnistria, dar nu uita să şi votezi. Cam cît timp e deschis un asemenea vot?--MariusM 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That really him? You know... ;-) Those edits are pretty moderate for what I've come to expect for The Corsican Man... ---Illythr 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He copy-pasted them from various sources. :-) bogdan 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. --Illythr 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a print edition of Tiraspol Times once monthly (I haven't seen it myself). This is not the case for Southeast European Times. It is online only. The editor of Tiraspol Times now has a Wikipedia account and participates in the discussion. No one knows who the editors of Southeast European Times are. They both have the same sort of contact information page. However, in addition, Tiraspol Times also has an accuracy pledge[9] which Southeast European Times does not. We are allowed to link to online sources such as Southeast European Times and Tiraspol Times when it provides additional relevant content that is not included in the main article. If there is a bias, you may mark it as such (POV in links), which is what I have often done for other sites. You should not delete them however. Southeast European Times has a presence on Wikipedia which has not been deleted or objected to by anyone.[10] and, in comparison, the presence of Tiraspol Times was much more limited and restrained. Apart from the fact that you removed all links from one, and not the other, those two sites are very similar in their markup and tone. - Mauco 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI there. On the "entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s" nomination, can I ask you to endorse the merging of those categories into category:Entertainers who committed suicide? It seems like they will be deleted, which is great, but I don't want to lose the data for when category:Entertainers who committed suicide gets subdivided along profession lines. (The "Entertainers who died in their 20s" group doesn't need such treatment.)--Mike Selinker 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have something (viewable to me) on the History of Banat? There are some controversies over "who was where"; is there a website covering Banat's history? --PaxEquilibrium 20:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, but I don't think I have any materials on the history of Banat. bogdan 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Roller of Galati... I have trouble picturing who would write such a crappy piece on a topic (s)he presumably takes an interest in. Dahn 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... :-) bogdan 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was due to me seeing the diff backwards and thinking it was a blanking, when in fact it wasn't.

Sorry!

Crazynas ^t 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this template deleted? It's part of the list of the major religious userboxes found in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life. Banaticus 01:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That too? I came here to ask why you, Bogdangiusca, deleted Template:User arab world unity, I'm surprised to find out that user Muslim was deleted as well, can you explain? Thanks! --Inahet 08:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdangiusca, you replaced the page shortly thereafter, a second person then moved the userbox off to user namespace, then the page was deleted again, without leaving the "Hey, this userbox has changed, the new location is..." userbox that the Userbox Migration Policy states should remain up. I haven't looked through the deletion logs again and you never bothered to respond the first time I posted here, but were you the one who deleted the page again? Banaticus 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comfortable with just deleting your (re-)additions to the above section of Transnistria, but I am even less comfortable with including them "as is". Please do not take my editing decisions as a way to impose censorship. Ideally, this section should undergo a rewrite to conform to NPOV and some of the other policies. If you agree, we can do this together, and I would prefer it that way (so consider this an invitation). We could set up a sandbox for that, and then present it to the rest of the editors when the two of us reach agreement. I am certain that we can reach agreement, and I think that a sandbox is a much better way of doing this than mainspace. - Mauco 14:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have time, I can also start it with User:TSO1D. Either one of you two will probably give the required balance and critical eye. - Mauco 13:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that the end of the article has essentially remained unchanged since January 2005. Would you or someone you know be able to provide a short summary of what's been happening in the Alliance since then? I don't mean a full-blown account of every move, but certainly we should get across the idea that they haven't been getting along very well. Biruitorul 18:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much happened, just the usual bickering between PD and PNL. bogdan 18:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right then! Biruitorul 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article gave a brief history and did not need to be deleted. It was not an advertisement. Please put it back. Diez2

Wikipedia is supposed to have only biographies of "notable" people, while your article included no reason to support the claim of notability. Please read our policy at WP:BIO. Thank you. bogdan 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to bolding the more important parties, if we can find a neutral criterion, such as having supplied a Prime Minister. After all, the Dutch model, on which we based this one, does use bold, putting the parties in chronological order by date of establishment. The current version is by no means the last word. Biruitorul 00:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could do without highlighting them at all - I just though that the current is a better way to highlight if we have to. For example, bolding would create an obvious difference that would perhaps call for some explanation (the other version is "x party - others in alphabetical order"). The bolding for PMs-given parties is not really a barometer of importance: the Ploughmen's Front gave a PM, and so did the People's Party, the Romanian National Party, or the National Christians; however, neither the Communists nor the Social Democrats ever did. Dahn 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe by vote totals or seats in Parliament then? It is indeed a tricky matter, and the current compromise might be as good as any, though I am open to other proposals. Biruitorul 03:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nu-Zaietz-01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Budapesta danube.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. - Sherool (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont forget to sort out redirects when moving pages around. There were a number of double redirects that I have cleaned up. Cheers --Lethaniol 16:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. bogdan 18:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bogdan, in response to your edit to my user page. The sources stated in the Stari Vlah post are reliable sources from State and University libraries. All research was done 35 years ago by scientists from the German university in Berlin in cooperation with some Serbian scholars as well and these findings have been published. Either way, I will no longer edit this anymore. It will be Wikipedia's loss to display poor and inacurate information. It is my belief though that you didn't read any of the sources provided nor do I believe that your credentials are valid enough to make you an expert. SGS 12:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you at the talk page of the article. bogdan 14:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Serbs022.png is tagged with {{logo}}. By the terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, it may not be used in templates. It may be used only in main namespace articles. Please do not re-insert the image into the template. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re [11]: On what grounds are you changing this to PD? Understand that coats of arms are visual depictions of blazons. This particular design could have been created yesterday. While the description might be centuries old, the visual depiction may be very young. I'm strongly inclined to retag this as logo unless you can provide some rationale as to why this particular depiction is PD. By the way, the {{PD}} tag is obsolete :-) . Also, the image has no source identified. I've tagged it with {{nsd}}. --Durin 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• From [12] it does not appear that you know what the copyright status of this image is. I think you are presuming that since it is a coat of arms, and centuries old, that it must therefore be PD. As noted above, that assumption can not be safely made. I've reverted your tagging of the image as PD pending clarification from User:PANONIAN. I will remove the image, once again, from the template. Please do not re-add the image without this being properly clarified. The default case here is to assume we can not use the image under a free license until it's clarified. Please, do not revert again. Talk it out rather than reverting away from the default case. Thanks, --Durin 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made by own version, Image:Serbian cross.png. Is this ok? :-) bogdan 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If the original was copyrighted, no, it would not be ok. The original's status has now been clarified as a derivative of Image:Republika Srpska coat large.png, which has been released under GFDL. Your drawing is clearly a derivative work of Image:Serbs022.png. It's not pixel for pixel, but it's extremely close. Consider; you could not take the logo of Coca-Cola, draw it over in Xara X, and then claim all rights to your version of Image:CocaCola.gif. If you then tried to make a million t-shirts with the logo on it, Coca-Cola would be on your doorstep so fast you wouldn't have time to finish your drawing :) I've reverted the template back to the original that has had the copyright status clarified. --Durin 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, aceasta vara, I went to Bucuresti (again ;p) and made some pictures of the interior and exterior of the Ateneu Român. This pictures I putted on the Dutch Wiki (see nl:Roemeens Atheneum). Well, I just wrote this 'cause maybe you want to use them on the en or ro version. Greets, Ro-Olandezul User:Al 82.171.215.71 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I re-uploaded them on commons and added them to the en.wiki article. bogdan 18:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bine! 82.171.215.71 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bogdan. Please look into the IP's persistent addition of a propaganda link on the Horia Sima article (as the "offical site"... of a very much dead man). Does that link belong somewhere, and, if so, does it need to be labelled as a "sympathetic link" or something? As you know, I get very touchy about such edits when they involve the polishing of known criminals,and I'd rather not get involved in a dispute with the IP, as I may end up insulting him. Dahn 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... that site includes the full text of many of his books and articles, so I guess that the links is useful. I'll add a warning that it's affiliated with Noua Dreaptă. bogdan 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's copypaste them in wikisource :). Dahn 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the works of Sima are still copyrighted. He died in 1993. bogdan 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they lift his civil rights in 1940? To my knowledge, that was not subject to change, and probably applies to his copyrighted stuff... (not to mention what constituted evidence against him...). I'm speculating,but, according to Romanian law, the man should have died in 1940. Dahn 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'41, no? Biruitorul 22:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You're right. Although I'm willing to bet that 1938 wasn't a good year for him in law history... Dahn 22:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he had more than a few bad years in law history. By the way, does he have descendants? Who holds the copyrights? Biruitorul 23:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder: Carol's regime most likely in absentia-ed them as well, so were they actually supposed to be in jail when they joined the Gigurtu cabinet as advisors? I mean, did Carol actually bother to lift the penalties? Dahn 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The world may never know. Biruitorul 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it's a murky area. It is possible that the copyrights might have been confiscated by the Romanian state, just like Bavaria did with Hitler's copyrights. But it's not really clear whether the confiscation is legal according to international copyright conventions. (in Hitler's case, his nephew did not wanted the copyrights). Anyway, post-1940 works are clearly copyrighted by the laws in Spain. bogdan 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question is how can the site itself render the works? If there is a succession matter (Sima to them), those guys are placing themselves outside the realm of Romanian legislation... Not to mention that claiming heritage makes them precisely what they don't want top be: liable, i.e. (outside of academia, it also entitles us to extend all manner of adjectives applied to the Iron Guard's ideology, despite all their atempts to dodge them). Dahn 22:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't know whether they have the approval of Sima's relatives to post the materials. It's interesting that their server is located in Romania and owned by Vodafone. :-) bogdan 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're in Romania, forget copyrights: by posting actual writings by Sima (or,at the very least, by posting actual writings by Sima without educational purpose and clear warnings), they're clearly in breach of the law against propaganda... Dahn 23:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, thanks for the illustration on Coat of arms of Bucharest, Bogdan. The thing is that... well... the COA I've described from Giurescu's mentions doesn't look anything like that. It's pretty weird, all in all. Dahn 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, strange. BTW, I made on commons a category with various old images I found: commons:Category:History of Bucharest. Maybe you could find some of them useful. bogdan 23:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you've been busy over there! Thanks a lot. Dahn 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Bogdane. Am şi eu o întrebare despre 3RR. Pe 23 octombrie am făcut un raport pentru Mauco [13] şi văd că încă nu s-a luat vreo decizie. E a 4-a oară că se întîmplă asta. Cît timp durează pînă se ia o decizie în astfel de cazuri? Am impresia că administratorii Wikipediei dorm.

Mi-a făcut şi mie Mauco 3RR raport în 24 octombrie dar n-am avut warning anterior. Nici în cazul meu nu s-a luat vreo decizie oficială dar m-am autosuspendat eu pentru 24 ore.--MariusM 22:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut! Varianta română este aproape complet adusă la zi (cu exceptia a 3 sau 4 nelămuriri). Dacă ai avea timp.... Toate cele bune şi sănătate perpetuă, Miehs Cristian-Mihail.

Isn't The Romanian People Salvation Cathedral rather oddly titled? I don't know what it should be, but this is very awkward wording. - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's too literal a translation. I think "The National Redemption Cathedral" would be less awkward. --Sanssheriff 14:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Apparently, the fragment of law used for the Antonescu image is considered misapplied - see Image:IonAntonescu.jpg, and for an explantion User talk:Khoikhoi#Romanian images. Dahn 14:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, would you mind looking at the discussion here? The article could do with revision, that's agreed, but the question is, should the title be changed? Thanks in advance Andrew Dalby 14:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my change to Kim Jong-il in popular culture as "nonsense". There's a question waiting for you in its talk page. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have understood. I will be writing those articles. I am searching for more information. I just dont have enough time to write.--SkyWalker 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I meant to ask you: do you think we should begin [sub]categorizing Romanian people by county(ie: "People from Teleorman County", "People from Hunedoara County")? Dahn 13:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think that's a good idea. I see there is, for example, Category:English people by county. bogdan 13:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem that I saw in such categories is their "parenting" - if we subcategorize "Romanian people by county" in "Natives of Transylvania"... We could create a precedent by naming it "People by county in Romania", and subcategorizing it in "Romanian people", with the mention "Note: Not all people included in this category were ethnic Romanians" or something. What say you? Dahn 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Category:Cornish people is a subcategory of Category:English people by county, although not all Cornish people were ethnic English.

But yes, I think we should put a note. bogdan 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a concern that traditional English counties have existed for centuries while the current counties of Romania were fixed only in 1968? Biruitorul 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figure we have to use the present-day grid. French "natives of" categories have "by région" and the German ones use the land system (both post-1945). I don't think it is a real problem in this case that we may introduc people into counties they never saw (unlike indicating an apparent "filial" relation between them and a country they never saw). Dahn 22:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, then, of what county was Ţepeş a native? Born in "Mureş" county, ruled in "Dâmboviţa" county. Or Avram Iancu, born in some county that this doesn't make clear, died maybe in Alsó-Fehér county, but today Alba county. And then there are people like Emil Constantinescu: is he a native of the interwar Romanian and 1991-2003 Moldovan Tighina County or of some present-day Moldovan/Transnistrian subdivision? I think your plan has merit, and is indeed supported by the French and German examples, so I could ultimately back it as well, but given some of these troubling historical questions, and also given the relatively weak "county identity" Romanians have (as opposed to the English), it's a plan I approach with some caution. Biruitorul 22:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that my plan is the one most relevant for the casual user. For one, it is the clearest: if we admit subcategorizing by "dead" subdivisions, we could just as well begin to subcategorize by all of them (say, if Iancu was born in x Hungarian county, a guy born in the same commune after 1968 would have to find himself placed in an altogether different category).Moreover, it is the most relevant: people arguably only use such categories to see what present-day region was home to each person, as those who are looking for where a particular person was born could only be helped by the respective article, and not by any particular category [note: I personally doubt that people use these categories at all, but we might just as well consider all their pros and cons].

In fact, the scandal I'd imagine happening is when Hungarian users would begin objecting to having, say, 14th century Hungarians included in present-day counties of Romania... (I'd point them to the elementary rationale, but I'd be bound to get a headache when dealing with some of them).

Also, I don't think that this necessarily involves the county identity (granted, it is very weak - though perhaps not in several Wallachian and Oltenian realms); people were objectively born in x place, which is part of y county (even if it was part of z county at q time) - their mothers could have been passing through not only the county, but also the town and the country, so no such category should not aim at using more than more than likely, but accurate, happenstance.

Perhaps not the ideal one, but most workable on wikipedia. Dahn 23:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; we'll see how this plays out in practice if and when Hungarian editors start attacking our categorizations. But you raise an interesting point about mothers passing through a particular county, and the definition of "native". My grandmother was born on a train in Jimbolia simply because her mother wanted to give birth in Romania and not Yugoslavia. She spent over forty years in Bucharest after that and I don't know if she's ever returned to Jimbolia. So, if she were encyclopedic, would we class her as a native of Timiş-Torontal county (I assume no), Timiş county, or Bucharest? Biruitorul 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story. For the purposes of wikipedia, I'd have to say "Timiş county" - to what I have argued above, add the fact that, if such a way of categorizing is meaningless, so may be said about the category system "by region/land/county" itself. In any case, I could not class someone as a native of x county if not born there, even if tthat person never returned there (consider that Weissmuller is universally seen as a native of Timişoara, and, based on shaky tradition, Vlad Dracula as a native of Sighişoara...).

I'd forgotten a detail: I'd have rather kept the "natives of" denominator for cities and towns, as I had originally created the categories - "people from" is ambiguous, and, if we remember what has happened on the Craiova page a while back (when someone began including all passers-through as "Notable people"), encouraging explosions of crap. The change was not (yet?) made for "natives of [the higher level of administrative division]", which leads to an intrinsic, but tolerable, paradox. But threin lies a potential solution to a collateral problem: if county affiliation is shaky, town affiliation is less so - we have a bit more than the skeleton of a "people from [town]", and, since we make "people from [town]" subcategories of "natives of [county]", people included in the latter are only the leftovers of the former (yes, most Romanians have traditionally been peasants - but, comparatively, only a few of them have been notable enough to deserve articles). Dahn 00:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works: town identity is probably stronger and would nest within an emptier county category. Imperfect, as such categories tend to be, but it could be of some value (that is, if anyone looks at categories, which is certainly possible). Biruitorul 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, nothing serious. Please, have a say. --PaxEquilibrium 16:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed. Dahn 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you get some time, could you please list your {{POV}} concerns about this article Occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in its talk page. Thank you.:Dc76 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that Gymn WIki spam (or reverting all the users contributions) on my talk page. Natalie 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bogdan,

One admin (I presume), User:Millosh has blocked me on meta for one day. He is POV -pushing some nonsense over the fact that the Moldovan nation is in the process of merging with the Romanian one (sic!), and that the Moldovan language is very-very different from Romanian. You can see it here meta:Wikimedia_projects_are_not_for_nation-building. I tried to edit and explain what's wrong, but the guy simply blocked me. I think he's trying to push some Montenegrin wikipedia, and is drafting wikipedia policies allowing it.

It's the first time I'm blocked, and it's probably a case of blatant POV-pushing by an admin on meta on policy issues.

Can you advise me? Can you do smth against this guy? If I didn't understand his position well, tell me and I'll try again. :/ Dpotop 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you can do. The meta is somehow outside of the wikipedia rules. You could discuss your blocking on the mailing list. bogdan 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. There's this guy GerardM that's pushing his agenda, accusing you of trolling and me of "ferocity" in anti-Moldovan arguments. All this is not logical, but then I noted a long time ago that wikipedia is not logical. There's also the so-called "language" committee, including GerardM, Berto, Sabine. I wonder who nominated them. :) Dpotop 13:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an image "Image:Polar medal top.jpg" in July with this message: "(NC after 19 May 2005)". I'm sure it is something obvious, that I'm forgetting, but what is NC? Cheers, Yomangani^talk 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-commercial image". Wikipedia no longer accepts this kind of images since 2005 and newly uploaded images are deleted. If you want, you can re-upload it (or ask me to undelete it) and add a Wikipedia:Fair use tag and justification. bogdan 16:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, knew it was something obvious. I'll write a fair use justification. Yomangani^talk 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the history, I keep getting reverted. I claim that the French Senate ratified the treaty on a 27-0 vote, and this article supports my claim. Now a user has linked to this article in support of the claim of 307 votes. While neither of us knows Bulgarian, we can nevertheless see the number 27 in there as well. What say you? Biruitorul 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask him to translated the part which mentions the 307 votes. I couldn't find any English or French reference to the number of votes. bogdan 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still getting reverted over there; I'm not sure why this is causing so much trouble. Meanwhile, are you able to move categories? If so, [[Category:Buddhism in Ancient Mediterranian]] should be moved to somewhere like [[Category:Buddhism in the ancient Mediterranean]]; in any case, the sea's name should be spelled correctly. Biruitorul 09:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. bogdan 10:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beware that there's a fork on the vote page, where mo:Wikipedia:Кандидаць and mo:Wikipedia:Candidaţi coexist subject to different trolls. And guess who's trolling: Node_ue and Bonny. :) At last news, the cyrillic variant is the main one, probably due to the time zone difference. Dpotop 11:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bogdan, I finially decided to create the Istro-Romanians article today (mostly split-off from Istro-Romanian language). If you would like to contribute, that would be great. Thanks, Khoikhoi 23:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, an ethnic group of 1,200 people! Do you think they're all related? :-) --Euthymios 23:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I plan to write about the inbreeding problems at some later date. ;-) Khoikhoi 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it mattered in the long run, but is there any reason why you unprotected tajikistan-bio-stub? It was protected to try to stop one user from overriding the decision of a process page (WP:SFD) that the template be upmerged. The user was repeatedly re-pointing the catalogue and was becoming abusive on several stub-related pages after hjaving been warned that overturning such a decision without going through process was not a good thing. As pointed out at WP:PP, the situation was slowly becoming resolved, but unprotecting the page before that happened (which you did only a few minutes after the page was protected, before I even got a chance to get the protection replaced by an admin not involved in the dispute in any way) risked starting the revertiong once again. As it happenns, it seems that the user in question was unaware that the protection had been removed, so no harm was done, but it was a curious move on your part. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You protected a page during a revert war against a non-admin. That is a faux-pas! :-) bogdan 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two things there - first, I protected to preserve the decision of a process page - it wasn't a personal edit war I had no personal opinion as to what should have occurred, and was only trying to uphold due process. Secondly, as I said, you did that before I even got a chance to get the protection replaced by an admin not involved in the dispute in any way. That is a faux pas which could have resulted in an escalation of the problem! No fuss though - what you did made sense, the timing was just a little unfortunate. :) Grutness...wha? 07:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan, could you please put in an official request on Meta to close voting on the closure of the Moldovan Wikipedia. The vote has been going on for many months now, much more than the two weeks initially stipulated. I know you don't have administrative rights on meta, but as your status as an admin on en and mo should carry some clout, and since you are the one who opened the vote on meta, I hope your voice will have more weight. TSO1D 23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any non-partisan would want to join that dispute and make a decision. From my experience, everyone avoids this kind of issues like the plague. The Moldovan issue won't be settled unless there'd be some intervention from above (i.e. simply removing the mo domain), but that seems rather unlikely. bogdan 23:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, B. I have created this list out of a former section of the Iaşi article which was destined to get bigger and bigger. It has been nominated for Speedy Delete (!) as soon as I created it, and I don't find any point made on the talk page valid or relevant. Can you have a quick look and tell me if I'm wrong? Thanks. Dahn 23:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for deleting the stupid Kaka_head article. I too wanted to but I am not an admin. :P.

I've just been cleaning up that category in general. There are a surprising number of libelous and unsupported categorizations. Thanks for catching my mistake here. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with this?--MariusM 19:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. bogdan 19:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this?

to Transnistria#Propaganda_and_disinformation. Let`s add all those links to The Economist, Ziua, whois searches, etc. Greier 12:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Octavian Goga.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why you indefinitely blocked an IP? I don't see anything in the user's contributions to warrant that as opposed to a temp-block. --Daniel Olsen 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sockpuppet of a banned user. bogdan 20:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently protected[14] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[15]: I think this categorization is wrong, though I won't fight over it. Lăptăria Enache is not a building or structure: it is located in (and, if we count La Motoare, on the roof of) the National Theatre Bucharest. But can't we do something more appropriate? Maybe start a subcategory of bars & cafés in Bucharest, where the fact that this particular one isn't a structure would be no big deal? - Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Autobuz gaz metan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan, your Secularization of church estates in Romania is red, what gives? Spelling mistake, or not yet made? If the latter, go for it: Make a stub! - Mauco 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet made. :-) I'll make a stub, but probably tomorrow, it's a bit late now in here. bogdan 23:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some anon really doesn't seem to like your map...perhaps you could leave a message on his/her talk page? Khoikhoi 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of reverting this guy...care to help out? :-) Also see Image talk:Map-balkans-vlachs.png. Khoikhoi 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map is indeed ambigous, but IMHO, it's better than nothing. I'll try to make a clearer map. Currently, the areas where they are a majority and those where they are a minority have the same colour and it lacks state borders. I want to use some topography sources and try to do a better quality map, like this one, but I don't know when I'd find time for that. :-) bogdan 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Khoikhoi 05:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not exactly easy to find free images for these, hence why I used fair use. Each have a source, a rationale and instructions on how to have it deleted if the copyright holder wishes. You're devoting a lot of time to have these deleted, would you be willing to devote a similar amount of time to search for free alteratives? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our policy on fair use is quite clear: it is to be used only when one can't reasonably create a replacement. Pictures of public building can be replaced easily with free alternatives. bogdan 10:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easily? Define easily. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can go and take a snapshot. bogdan 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bogdan, I see that you also attacked my uploaded images. Anyone can go and take a snapshot, but I am not in Ukraine and am not able to take images of the places/buildings, nor are many other Ukrainian en wiki users. Should I just call a random person off the street and say "Would you pls take a snapshot for an article that I am writing on Wikipedia?" or what? It is very hard to find replacements for the images or create them, and there are a lot of the images floating around on the web (for instance the House with Chimaeras statues¹) but they are also all copyrighted!! Anyway, on some images, you were not very careful about the tagging, for instance this. I believe that you know that photography is strictly phrohibited in some religious places, like the interiour of ancient caves... How am I to obtain a free-replacement for that? —dmytro/s-ko/ 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In order to comply to our Fair use in Wikipedia, the images must irreplaceable or nearly so. You are right about that cave image, but for the House with Chimaeras, anyone who is in Kiev can take some pics without any difficulty. Maybe you should ask this on the Ukrainian noticeboard? bogdan 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What - you didn't like "smash hit"? LOL - crz crztalk 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. :-) bogdan 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged the above image for RFU. I have now updated the copyright tag to the current free status. Please delete the RFU tag. Regards, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Done. I also changed "CC-BY" with "Attribution". CC-BY is actually a more complex license than it's shown in the human-readable summary. For example, it has some clauses forbidding the Digital Rights Management. bogdan 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. And also thanks for the re-tagging: I'll use the Attribution tag on other Akzo Nobel picture too. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 13:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ce crezi despre asta?--MariusM 23:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On November 11, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Constantin Argetoianu, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks Bogdan for your DYK work.....Dahn kindly nominated this article for DYK - Keep up the great work on Romania, happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please deal with what's happening there? The atrocious piece of sophistry in the last edit summary is getting to my nerves, and I'd rather not be insulted any more today. Dahn 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted and blocked the IP for 24 hours. bogdan 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Btw, what's up with that bot that was spamming us? Dahn 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently under testing... bogdan 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testing our nerves, I suppose. Dahn 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bocskai and Bocskay are equally valid, but to call him Stephen is not. 1.He signed his documents as Stephanus or István Bocskai. 2.The Stephan not Stephen was the German version. The Encyclopædia Britannica identifys him as István Bocskay http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9080351/Istvan-Bocskay 3. The most common version is István Bocskay: according to Google Results 1 - 50 of about 88,300 for istván bocskay. (0.15 seconds), the same test results in : Results 1 - 50 of about 978 for stephen bocskay. (0.14 seconds)

Bests, Transylvanus 23:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan, thanks for your work on this article. I need to be a stickler for accuracy, however, because this is something which I've spent a lot of time on in the past with now-permabanned user Greier. I have no serious problems with most of your edits but we do need some sources for the following, please:

• You latest change made the South Slavs sound like mere transit-lounge travellers. If there is a historic record, some of them are bound to have put down roots. I suggest something along the lines of "Transnistria was an early crossroads of people and cultures, including the South Slavs, who reached it in the 6th century."
  

  No problem. bogdan 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal. - Mauco 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some East Slavic tribes (Ulichs and Tivertsy) may have lived in it." The may is good if we don't have conclusive sources, but if that is the case, then it is debately on which grounds we are including it anyway? Perhaps a source which is not WP:RS?
  
• "but they were pushed further north by Turkic nomads such as Pechenegs and the Cumans." Here, what is the source which gives you the idea of the "pushed north"? A war? Or a migration for which reasons? Was it rather that perhaps they left, and someone else showed? The pushed out part should be explained. Could they not co-exist? What really happened (or what do we think happened?)
  

I took this from Ulichs: Later on, the Ulichs and the neighboring Tivertsi had to retreat to the north due to the Pecheneg invasion. I'll look for a source. bogdan 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion makes sense. Let us add that, or the "pushed" sounds strange all by its lonesome. - Mauco 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then there is "In the 10th century, the "Volohove" (Vlachs, i.e. Romanians) are mentioned in the area in the Primary Chronicle."
  

This is interesting because Primary Cronicles is mostly a Slav history. In the 10th century, we find the area to be part of Kievan Rus. So they encounter a Latin people in the area. On which side of the Dniester?
Please don't feel that I am busting your balls, but this particular part has had a lot of strife in the past, so it is important that we can support this newest interpretation of events. - Mauco 22:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the limit where the Volohove lived is not clear, but neither are the limits of the Ulichs and Tivertsi. :-) bogdan 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't be a stickler for accurate borders. I know that this is unreasonable. - Mauco 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that image credits should only be on the image page? I don't believe that's a policy anywhere. A lot of these images are released was the caveat that the creator be credited, which is a condition we allow (the only one, in fact). —Chowbok ☠ 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page.

from Wikipedia:Image use policy bogdan 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creators of images are credited in the image page, so we respect the CC-BY license. The same thing happens with text contributions: authors must be credited (according to GFDL) and Wikipedia credits them in the "history" page. bogdan 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to add "film-screenshot" to the photo when I first loaded it. When I went back to the photo summary page for the photo and added it as instructed by Wikipedia it transferred the fair use rationale to the edit summary section as well. The only thing I put into the edit summary was "added"film-screenshot". Philbertgray 02:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]