User talk:Dc76/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This page was archived following the instructions at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Cut and paste procedure.

Image copyright problem with Image:DeutscheBessarabien.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:DeutscheBessarabien.pdf. 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. 06:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! —Khoikhoi 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Taxes in Ukraine

Actually, there are local and national taxes in Ukraine. For example, VAT is a national tax, and tax on land usage is a local tax. All taxes, local and national, are collected by the national authority. Then, the authority gives the collected amount of local taxes to the local administration. Thus, it's not a problem that there is only the national tax administration. The problem is different.

The local taxes are not enough to finance local expenditures. Say, there are two regions, both need to spend 100 dollars on local schools/ hospitals/ infrastructure/ etc. And, say, in one region local taxes sum up to 40 dollars, and in the other they add up to 60 dollars. Both amounts are not enough. So, the national government steps in, and provides subsidies up to what they thing is the "right" amount, so both regions are subsided to cover the needed 100 dollar expenditures.

As the local taxes are limited, effectively, it would be up to the higher level government to decide whether a region (or district) needs additional funds to construct, say, a new school, etc. And a region cannot introduce new local taxes, it can only regulate the tax rates within some preset limits. This is the problem.

2001 Ukrainian Census

The census forms are available from the census website: [1]. In particular, here is page 1 of the Individual Form: [2]. Item 6 on the form is a write-in field for ethnicity/nationality (Ukrainian: "Ваше етнiчне походження"). Item 7(a) is a write-in field for native language (Ukrainian: "Вашi мовнi ознаки; (a) рiдна мова").

Reply from Khoikhoi

Hey Dc76,

Yes, I know what anachronistic means. :-) I was referring to the your changes of "Kishinev" to "Chisinau". First off, the official name was Kishinev back then, and this was also the most common name in English for the city at the time. This is why we have the page at Great Fire of Smyrna, not Great Fire of İzmir. For the same reason, we have the page at Kishinev pogrom, because most English sources show this as the most common name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for more information.

As for Bugeac, normally, polling is evil. :-) The best thing to do is reach a consensus, so that both parties agree, and it's not just some outnumbering contest. I noticed one of the issues was the Moldovans/Romanians debate. According to WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Since Irpen's source (the Ukranian census) data separates Romanaians and Moldovans, we should present it how they have it. However, if you have reliable sources of your own to back up your information, then you can include it in the article. Also remember that Wikipedia has a policy against original research (it's usually not a good idea to do your own math).

As for your background, I found that to be pretty interesting. I've been here for too long, so I guess I know enough to help other users. Please let me know if you have any other questions. La revedere! —Khoikhoi 05:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. Sorry, I am a little busy in real life,a nd did not have time to answer everything. You are write about "Kishinev pogram", but one should be able to find out the present name of the city. My edits were excessive and incorrect, sorry. I should have just added "Kishinev is the Russian name for the present day city of Chisinau, capital of Moldova. At the time of the Kishinev pogrom, the city was part of Russian Empire, where Russian was used in administration and public affairs, therefore all sourses of the time refer to the city by its russian name" or something alike. About the second issue, hopefully it will work. If not I get back to you later. Thanx again!

No problem. I agree with you - it should be made clear what the modern name for the city is. How's this? Cheers, —Khoikhoi 17:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK:Dc76

Suggestion

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! —Khoikhoi 15:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this information:--Dc76 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Hey Dc76. I noticed you gave every section in Anti-Romanian discrimination the same three tags. Instead, you can just tag the whole article by adding each one once at the top of the article. Also, your talk page isn't really meant to be used as a sandbox, you can create instead at User:Dc76/Sandbox (I have my own at User:Khoikhoi/Sandbox) Cheers! Khoikhoi 23:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi,

Anti-Romanian discrimination - I hoped people will in time edit subsections, and remove the template tags. To edit a whole section at once is really a lot of work. But if you think there is a better way, and have time to do it, please by all means, be my guest.

Now, I've seen what you've done. yes, experience counts, it does look nicer. But the text is ... somewhet itchy. I even though of adding "sermon" template :)

User:Khoikhoi/Sandbox - Thanx for that!!

Also, thanx for your small edits here and there. It is hard to observe mistakes when you've read the text twice. It's nice to know someone cares. Cheers!:Dc76 23:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. My main point was all those tags made the article hard to read, and if you're going to tag every single section, it makes more sense to have one tag for the whole article. Cheers! Khoikhoi 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are not a sock-puppet

If you are not user:Bonaparte, I strongly suggest you to start from smaller contributions, not completely reshuffling relatively good articles, supply your additions with reputable and verifiable references, and we will talk. `'mikkanarxi 20:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My God, you can speak!!!

I am not user:Bonaparte! Maybe you are Bonaparte! And don't call me "sock-puppet", I never used names addressing you!!! Why are you following me, what have I done wrong to you personally? Or you just do because you don't like my nation?

It is not required by Wikipedia official policy that all new users submit evidence to User:Mikkalai about their ability to write. Mikkalai, you are not God, and people are free to do what they want as long as they don't bend rules. You have no right to state rules and have no right to demand that people answer to you! You are not Wikipedia, you are just a user, like me. If you have more experience, I have something mush more valuable that you miss completely: I have manners and good sense. I don't attack you!

Because of you I lost a lot of time during the last day, and it also affects people phychologically. If you like confrontations, maybe other people don't!!! I feel unpleasant when someone is agressive towards me! In real life I call the police.

I want to be safe from you!:Dc76 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You will be safe as long as you will edit things you know. You started editing things you have no clue in a certain manner reminding me of one good friend, and this attracted my attention. I am not God, but I don't do huge changes in topics I don't have immediate knowledge. `'mikkanarxi 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai, just read what you write:

You will be safe as long as you...

Don't you realize this not how civillized people talk?!! I will be safe as long as I call the police and defend myself with the law, not with some makeshift abstractization. I don't need you personal assurances that you will not attack me, you have attacked me so many times in the last 24 hours, and you are NOT any kind of authority! Wikipedia is not your property!

I am in no obligation to know what reminds you of what! It is your, not my problem to deal with what reminds you! What if you remind me of Ossama bin Laden, should I just start by killing you?

If you would have any sense of remorse whatsoever, you would appolozise.

Regardless of what you say now, I don't want to collaborate with you on anything. I have collaborated very well with Khoikhoi and Irpen (with the latter, even when we had conflicting oppinions, we were able to talk like people, not like you), and with others in the past, before I had an account, and I will collaborate with them in the future. But I don't want to be anywhere near you! If you enter a room, ask someone to check before if I am there; if I am, I will live right away, so I can spear my brain cells from distruction when they see you.

Just know one thing: you lack very much in good manners. :Dc76 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is outragous. How can Mikka talk to someone like this "If you remind you of Osama bin laden should I just start by killing you", "It is not my problem to deal with what reminds you", "You will be safe as long as you"...WTF is this sort of talk? Mikka have you gone insane or is this the kind of way you adress people who do not agree with your point of view? Dapiks 20:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood my message

I was referring to the report I removed here. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to sound critical of your report.--Vercalos 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As for what you should do, take it to dispute resolution, unless you can show evidence of him insulting you, PAI is not the place to take it. Check here for the steps you should take to resolve your dispute with Mikky.--Vercalos 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were refering to me.

My problem is not about disputes for articles. I want someone to tell him not to target me. I have had disputes in the past, and I was able to resolve them, even when other users were strongly biased. But other users never targetted me. It was always article by article discussion. User:Mikkalai does not talk, he just reverts everything I edit. Why other users, who disagree with me on one sentance or another, do not do this, but always talk about the sentances in question? I can not edit anything on Wikipedia, Makkalai will immediately rv it.:Dc76 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the person who looked at your claim told you to take it to dispute resolution... I would at least try to follow his advice.--Vercalos 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very mcuh for answering me. I also asked the person who looked at my claim, Shell babelfish, the following:

How about the main issue, the fact that fact that he targets me? Is it possible to ask him not to do this anymore? He does not listen to me, he just erases all my comments and questions. Can you kindly ask him not to target me? I would really appreciate if you could do so.

I hope he/she will answer me, as you did.:Dc76 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Late reply

Hey Dc76, sorry for my late reply. Have things been resolved yet? Usually, you should give {{npa}} before {{npa3}}, but I personally prefer to give non-template messages (i.e. in my own words) for this sort of thing. Please let me know if you need help with any more things. The "strange user" you refer to is a banned troll called Bonaparte. Personally, I would try to avoid him, as it's generally a bad idea to talk with banned users on Wikipedia. Speaking of your userpage, I'm not so sure if it's ok to call users "biased" in that way, it can be taken as a violation of WP:NPA. You should probably remove it, but that's just my suggestion. La revedere, Khoikhoi 02:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for returning back to me. I have taken step 3 of some advice somewhere on Wikipedia: give it a brake for a while, and I avoided to edit paged vandalized by Makkalai. Irpen told me that Makkalai thought that I am his archenemy Bonaparte, and therefore has targeted me. If that is true, he would appologize, and the issue would be settled. But to do so requires some non-trivial degree of manners...

The NPA replied that the discussions about the content of pages should go to arbitration. I replied, saying that my point is his personal attacks against me. I could edit nothing, nowhere on Wikipedia, because he would follow me. I ask if someone can ask this user to stop targeting me. I am still waiting for reply to that.

I gave up on the page Budjak, let it be Irpen's way, I am tired of discussing hours about 1 sentance. Also I hope my small edits on Battle of the Vorskla River will survive. I gave up Bolohoveni, it is not worth the energy spent on this. This leaves just 2 of the pages targeted by Mikkalai:

Romanophobia. Remember, you helped reduce the tags, etc? I suggest to rv to this version: 23:38, 25 October 2006 by Khoikhoi (you), and continue slowly from there. The page is bad, b/c the poor content is just the same, but at least it would be organized. Does that sound OK with you?

Finally Northern Maramures. My plan was to add section by section, therefore I introduced the table of content. This article was already reversed twice against what Makkalai did: by you and by a User:Crimsone. I suggest I do it in my sandbox or project1, and I show you. You read it and tell me about POV issues, we resolve them, and then I upload it into the article. How does that sound? But I will not be able to edit all logical subsections, I can do, say, half of them. Hopefully some constructive users will join to fill the gaps. After that, of course people will copy-edit. But we would put something of a better quality to start with.

Websters gives this definition for biased:

1. Favoring one person or side over another; "a biased account of the trial"; "a decision that was partial to the defendant".

2. Excessively devoted to one faction.

Synonyms: one-sided, unequal, uneven, disparate, partial; unbalanced, overbalanced; top-heavy, lopsided, biased, skewed; disquiparant.

None of these words sound to me denigrating. I am also sometimes baised. Like, if there would be an article about my family name, etc., I would be very-very biased. What I mean is that some users, in my opinion take sometimes a very one-sided point of view. Having a one-sided point of view is not a crime, it is just regretable in instances when that occures. By saying that someone is biased, I am saying that I regret he/she has only such POVs, I am not accusing of acts bending rules, just of bending recommendations.

If I do not follow your recommendation, you would not call me a criminal, would you?

Is it like "anachronistic"? :):)

Good night, or rather "Good morning":Dc76 02:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Regarding the Românofobia page, I guess mikka's concern is that you replaced sourced material with new information that (mostly) wasn't backed up by references. I suppose you can state what your objections are on the talk page. I agree with your idea about Northern Maramureş, you can start your work at User:Dc76/Northern Maramureş or something similar.

As for your userpage, WP:NPA tells us to "comment on content, not on the contributor". This is simply not the place to have a categorization of users like that, and I'm asking you to please remove it soon, as I'm sure there would be some admins who would block you for this. Please follow my advice. :-) Ciao. Khoikhoi 21:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not errased a single word from Românofobia page, I just re-arranged it in sections and subsections. Later I added one paragraph in an empty section, and was discussing with Irpen its formulation. That's why I was so concerned when Mikkalai statred reverting - there was no issue about content. I will say so on the talk page, too, and move a motion (absolutely informal :)) for reverting to my sections order, or let's say to a better section order than the current. I suppose I should let someone else to distribute the existing info in sections, or do it one paragraph at a time with comments, so that someone tracing page history can see every move sentance by sentance. It should not take more than an hour, after the majority of contributors to that page agree. (But I will not do this today or tomorrow, I will be busy now, sorry.)

How about I emphasize that I refer to their acitons, because that's the only thing that I know about these contributors? I just want to have easy links to the pages of people I already met. In my opinion, it's not WP:NPA violation, just freedon of speech. ... OK, maybe better, I will refrase it so that someone new on wikipedia will understand zero.

As for the category "vandals", I will leave as is now for one week, since I already said so on my page. But I will not add any name even if there would be no appology. It will be simply that users who know about the issue will know that an appology was due and was never to be found. But until the week is over, I am assuming that it will be found :-):Dc76 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to demand an apology from anyone, nor do you get to 'shame' anyone. Please remove the 'vandal' phrase. --InShaneee 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not from a "user". A real person, if civilized will always appologize if done serious wrong. The appology does not have to be public, it can be absolutely private, for noone else to see. I have no intentions to shame anyone in eyes of anyone exept his/her own, and only for the finite amount of action did in that particular interval of time, which I think I already did when I simply and plainly pointed out in the first place that a civilized person does not act like that. I would like the person to appologize, because then I would be able to work with him/her on other artciles. If he does not, the only thing I can do is simply avoid him/her. I am not asking for an OFFICIAL appology.

But, since you asked, have it your way. I removed vandal. Are you satisfied? If you have more objections, please feel free to leave a message anytime. I am not continuously on Wikipedia, obviuosly, but I will see it.:Dc76 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not; the section needs to be removed entirely. You can demand an apology from a 'real person', sure, but not on wikipedia. --InShaneee 23:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, I will remove the paragraph entirely, because YOU asked, and I am assuming you act in GOOD FAITH.

Can I ask him for appology on his talk page? He has called me names on mine and threatened! I am not going to do that, obviously, I just want to know that he regrets those actions.:Dc76 23:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't. If he wants to apologize, he will, and yes, that is the polite thing for him to do. However, if he doesn't, that is his prerogative, and we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Thank you, though, for your cooperation here. --InShaneee 00:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, please do monitor my User page, so you can see that I am not going to put the paragraph back, or in a different form.:Dc76 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria / History of Transnistria

The quality of your edits certainly suggest the involvement of a sockpuppet, but don't worry. As long as you do good work, I won't hold that against you. I just have one request: Would it be possible to do your work on the History of Transnistria in the History of Transnistria article, rather than in the main Transnistria article (as you do now). This is purely practical request, in order to avoid content forking. Our "rule" among Transnistria related articles is that the details should be in the specific sub-articles and that only a summary shall then make it to the main page.

So far, I like what I see and you are doing very useful and intelligent work. THANK YOU for that! However, the History section in Transnistria is getting way too long now, with your latest additions. We are reluctantly forced to cut some of that out. However, we should not lose this material. Please incorporate it into History of Transnistria instead and please don't be upset at my deletion(s). - Mauco 01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. You are actually right: I first wrote more, then was forced to cut half of it when I saw the preview. I will not add more to the history section of Transnistria. But I don't really want to do the article History of Transnistria, because it will be one more "controversal" article that I would get involved in, and I have a lot of projects that are not politically connected (such as science articles for once), and very less spare time recently. I sincerely would rather do something else. But I agree with you about content forking, although it's a notion (content forking on wikipedia) I've just read about a week ago.

What I ment to do on article Transnistria, is, because I saw you and EvelAlex starting a new Transnistrian war :), to cut off the unessentials. You two forgot about a lot of details: how could you two talk so much about the name of Transnistria and forget to mention Kozak memorandum? It is like talking about the name of Cuba under Fidel Castro and forgetting the bay of pigs. :)

I was writing my comment on the War of Transnistria rv of two words, so instead doing it there, here is my comment, now that i am spared to write another message:

Raşcov / Raşcu castle. The name with a^, as far as I know was only by the Romanian army during WWII. As for the castele, let me refer to the follwoing map from 1941-1944, which by the way would be nice to include in the article transnistria (disambiguation--> second item):

[[3]]

All this territory has about 50,000 sq km. This is a lot. And in 1600 it only had 63 villages, of which 49 moldavian. An average village nowadays has 20-25 sq km territory. So 63 villages for this territory really-really very little. The problem was: there was no (easy to access)water there!!! Who cared about politics, when you have nothing to drink. The castle was build under Petru Rares, and the first "owner"'s name was Ras,cu. But duing years people twisted the name into Rascov. It is a village about 15 km north of Ribnitsa. To control such a territory one has to have at least 10 castles. Only one, and only in a corner, says exactly the fact that there were very few people, but that boyars do no forget to collect taxes from everyone. It was a matter of money first of all, not of exercising control, for there were no boundaries in modern sence before the Wesfalia treaty in 1648.

so look at the map. Since I don't have one of 1600, I have to approximate over this one of 1941-1944. Movilau, Jugastru and Tulcin were in fact Polish (politically). Movilau was not even part of Yedisan or Dykra, it was too close to Camenets and Bar - the SW-most two cities in real sense of the word city. Movilau was a village owned by Movila boyars from Moldavia, and it was part of Kingdom of Poland, not of Moldavia. (Just like Pokuttia - it was owned as a lord by Stephen the Great, but it was part of Kingdom of Poland. this was the root of the 1497 war: Ioan Albert wanted Stephen to swear alleagence full stop, while Stephen only could swear alleagence for Pokuttia. there are tons of such examples in france, germany, spain.)

Ribnitsa, Balta, Dubasari, and approx half of Tiraspol, Ananiev and Golta were the 49 Moldavian villages. The east-most village was Golta, it is opposite the modern-day city of Pervomaisk.

Ovidiopol, Odessa, Berezovka, Oceakov, and approx half of Tiraspol, Ananiev and Golta were the 14 or so Tatar settlements.

To me this is very little population, and talking about it, is like talking of how many american indians were in pennsylvania. Yes, maybe as much as 40,000. But the population of Pensylvania is more than 10 million! It is a historic fact, it is like a curiousity. I don;t think there can be any relation to modern-day politics.

Last. but not least, what does it mean a "sockpuppet"? I would have a lot against a person who would call me names in real life. But I suspect it means something in wiki jargon. :):) Does it mean something like reincarnation of a banned user? If it is so, then I want to tell openly and directly: I did not have another wikipedia account before. I read wikipedia for almost 2 years now, but not so much about Romanian isuues, because there was little material not so long time ago. After a while, I started editting occasionally some articles without signing for any account, but I never came closer to politics than geography or history issues that I knew from being in a city or a region (moreoftern outside romania, moldova, ukraine), and learning about these details when there, because I was interested to know the geography and history of cities and regions I live in. I opened an account when I thought I can start and article myself, and discovered that I need one to upload pictures. But my progress is slow, because I don't have much spare time, and my real life demands me. I never knew what edit war was before I saw them these two months, because I never thought people would revert edits, just improve them (I know it is too simplistic, but I really thought so!). For example I would edit sometihng in March and forget about it. Then in July I recall, and read the article. Say I introduced 5 new things in March. I see 3 of them present, 1 modified and 1 missing. I say to myself that the core of my contribution is there, and that someone took pains to read what I did, so I was happy. I never saw big changes in my edits, but i saw sometimes big contributions from other users after what I did. And then I get currious: how did they know this or that detail about this city, I took books from library b/c was currious and did not know!

I am really sleepy, so sorry i end abruptly, good night and good luck! and please, try not to get involved in edit wars. You know what people say: the thing an outsider understands from a dispute is not who's right, and who's wrong, but who's more intelligent: the smart one gives up first.:)

Dc76 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. I appreciate you can forget about sides when judging contributions. It makes one think that after all people of all nations are 99.99% identical, and that persentage includes much more than just gene transmition. People can disagree, but they can talk. It is a pleasure having an academic dispute, when you know every one will not attack the other personally and everyone has limits of decency. good night!:Dc76 02:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

DC76 - pentru discuţii directe cu mine, dacă nu vrei să le faci pe pagina articolelor respective, poţi folosi opţiunea "e-mail this user". N-are rost să intrăm în subtilităţi juridice despre cît de apropiate sau diferite sînt situaţiile din Kosovo şi Transnistria. Părerea mea e clară - nu trebuie să comparăm aceste situaţii în articolele din Wiki. Nu ştiu de ce v-aţi apucat să discutaţi introducerea articolului Transnistria, era o introducere neutră şi acceptabilă. Sînt alte probleme mai importante de corectat în Wiki.--MariusM 09:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

I understand. Your proposal for the Românofobia article sounds fair enough. If I were you I wouldn't try to do it right away, rather, you should focus your time on other articles (just a suggestion!) As for VoABot II, he's been malfunctioning lately. You can see all sorts of comments about it on Voice of All's talk page. Interestingly enough, the article is on the bot's watchlist because of Bonaparte. As for the Transnistria article itself, I agree that sometimes the edit wars can be lame, but my main concern is that they just seem to drag on forever. Who knew such a small region could create such controversy! :-) Cheers, Khoikhoi 02:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm not doing Românofobia now. It will have to wait, and a lot. At least from my part. When you feel like sufficient cooling period has passed, just drop me a line.

I guessed VoABot II was some kind of authomatic user. You will have to tell me one day the whole story about Bonaparte. :) It really angreed me that he used unconvetional words. you see, people of other nations would think that all or many romanians are the same.

Transnistria? I don;t even want to think what is going on about Jerusalem or Kashmir! :))) Or maybe there is more peace there, who knows... :) I am afraid one day some crazy wiki user will find who's his/her enemy is in real life and will want to do something. Thsnks God this is not an issue yet, but i would be surprised if i don;t hear anything about it in the next 10 years. It is maybe improbable, but the danger is real. Police detectives might not even know wikipedia exists!!! This is just as dangerous as children who meet strangers after they chat:Dc76 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do you know why do my User page and User talk page are protected? I did not put that. I surely don;t mind them, since they don;t bother me. I just don't want someone who comes there to think I am some kind of banned user. For example, on my user page it can not be seen by an outsider, but on the talk page - it can. Is it possible to do the same trick?:Dc76 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Bonaparte. :-) Well, I guess you could start by reading this. Some of the comments there are actually quite amusing really. Bonny is a troll who just can't stop editing Wikipedia—so much to an extent that he causes pages to be protected by his disruption. He essentially inserts highly POV or false information into articles, and then proceeds to edit war over it, harass other users (i.e. with homophobic, racist, & childish taunts), etc...

There have been similar problems to the ones you mentioned. Some of them pop-up at WP:AN/I every once in while. For example, I once got an email from a banned user who threatened to murder a little girl if I didn't revert a page to his version (see thread). And in the end, it turned out it was all one (sick) joke on the users part. His reason for his ban was changed, and I believe the police might have gotten involved, I'm not sure.

As for your user & talk pages, I've protected them (from new & anonymous users) to prevent disruption by you-know-who. Unfortunately, only admins can protect and unprotect pages. You can remove the tags if you want, and even ask me to unprotect them. The thing is, it is highly likey that Bonny will try to talk to you, and interacting with banned users on Wikipedia is generally a bad idea. Just let me know what you would like me to do. La revedere! Khoikhoi 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My (quick) reply to the above 3 paragraphs:

1. I am glad that not everybody believes all Romanians are the same.

2. That is a very-very sick joke. It might be difficult to make a case against him, but not impossible. And legislation pertaining such acts surely will get tougher in the future. I hope you have reported the incident in a way so that it can be used as an example when proposing tougher legislation.

3. I don't have time for Bonaparte now. The best would be if he simply looses interest in Wikipedia. If he wants to participate, he has to learn not to cross the line of civilized bahavior, even when he thinks that "the other side" has crossed first. I have said before, but I'll repeat this again, because I strongly believe it: an intelligent person can always find other means of getting to the point than ostentatively engaging in confrontation.

P.S. Do you speak Romanian? I am very pleased you greet me in Romanian, but I don't want you to somehow feel oblidged to do this.

Cele mai bune urǎri, (Best wishes) :Dc76 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree! :-) No, I don't speak Romanian, I just know a few phrases. Noapte bună, Khoikhoi 09:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mda stie romaneste doar destul cat sa faca probleme romanilor care nu stau cuminti si nu inghit mizeria scrisa de el si mikka in articolele legate de romani... anyways, DC76, m-am uitat pe articolul tau si mi-a placut dar impresia mea e ca rutenia carpatica si maramuresul de nord sunt acelasi lucru doar ca au nume diferite. Poate ar fi bine ca sa "merge" articolul tau in rutenia subcarpatica.Dapiks 20:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nu, nu, rutenia subcarpatica e mai mare decat maramuresul de nord. Acum, daca am studiat subiectul, am invatat cate ceva. :) In regatul ungariei, in evul mediu, erau urmatoarele 3 comitate vecine cu comitatul maramures: Ung (Unguras in surse romanesti), Bereg si Ugocsa (Ugocea in surse romanesti). Inainte de secolul 16, toti rutenii (rusyni in limba lor de atunici) din regatul ungariei traiau in aceste comitate. Dar fiecare dein ele era cam 1/2-2/3 rutean, restul fiind romani, unguri si slovaci. De exemplu, una din diplomele ades citate in manualele de istorie a lui Louis de Anjou din secolul 14 pomeneste de atribuirea de anumite drepturi de autonomie (se are in vedere stare sociala, taxe, etc) romanilor din Hateg (astazi judetul Hunedoara) si Bereg (!). Ung si Bereg contin atat munti de peste 2000 metri, cat si bucati din campia Panoniei, la 100 m, iar Ugocea are doar dealuri si campie (n-are munti).

Concluzia 1: pana in secolul 16, Rutenia Subcarpatica era o designatie etnica, nu politica, adica nu avea frontiere precise (e cum as fi zis "bugeacul tataresc" - nu inseamna ca in bugeac traiau doar tatari), si Maramuresul nu facea parte din ea.

Concluzia 2: In intelesul de astazi din Ucraina, Regiunea Transcarpatia este acelasi lucru cu Rutenia Subcarpatica, si consta din 4 foste comitate: Ung, Bereg, Ugocea si Maramures. Ei nici nu pomenesc de faptul ca 1/3 din Ung este azi in Slovacia, 1/4 din Bereg este azi in Ungaria, 1/4 din Ugocea este azi in Romania (zona Halmeu) si 40% din Maramures este azi in Romania (60% din actualul judeti Maramures, sau 100% din judetul Maramures interbelic)

A scrie despre Rutenia Subcarpatica este mai bine s-o faca ucrainenii. Eu vreau sa scriem doar despre Maramuresul de Nord. Acum, eu imi dau seama, ca o parte din informatia inclusa in articol acum va trebui stearsa in final. Dar, deoarece eu chiar am aflat multe lucruri noi citind despre asta in ultimii 1-2 ani, am inclus si informatii despre Ung, Berege, Ugocea, cat si despre Transilvania in general, ca sa ne ajute la intelegerea fenomenelor in context. Evident aceste parti vor trebui scurtate.

Doua fenomene s-au inamplat in secolul 16: "colonizarea galiciana" si mugrarea treptata a rutenilor dinspre bereg si ugoce spre maramuresul de nord. Primul fenomen a foast doar in sec 16. Al doilea, a durat timp de 300 ani si a dus la faptul ca in 1918 erau 150 000 de ruteni si hutuli in maramures.

"colonizarea galiciana" inseamna ca 3 "triburi de munte", boiko, lemko si hutulii, s-au raspandit de pe partea de nord pe anumite parti (in interiorul vailor muntilor, nu aproape de campie) din partea de sud a carpatilor. 1A) lemko dinspre galicia poloneza de azi spre comitatele Ung si Zempeln (mai mult spre mici regiuni din slovacia de astazi decat ucraina de astazi) 1B) boiko spre regiuni din Ung si Bereg (ucraina de azi) si 1C) hutsuli, care traiau in Pocutia, adica jumatatea de sud a regiunii Ivano-Frankovsk (Stanislau) de azi, spre Bukovina si nord-estul Maramuresului. In recensamintele austriece, insa, termenul de ruteni (rusyni) s-a folosit atat asupra rutenilor veniti in sec 8, cat si asupra celor veniti in sec 16-19. Zona locuita de Hutsuli in "rutenia subcarpatica" (numele a fost primia data folosit in sens politic in cehoslovacia intre cele 2 razboaie) este fosta plasa Tisa din comitatul Maramures (1 din 11 plase). Astazi aceasta corespunde cu raionul Rahau minus vreo 7 sate ramanesti, adica approx. 70 000 astazi. Regiunile Boiko de azi au si ele cam 50-100 de mii, iar cele lemko sint si mai mici.

In fine, o sa pun niste harti pe pagina asta User:Dc76/project3, asa ca sa-ti faci idee, sau mai bine, ca sa ti le copiezi pe calculatorul tau. Marea majoritate sunt copiate asa ca Wikipedia le va sterge automat peste 1 saptamana (nu-i asa?)

Privitor la cei doi tipi. Da, unuia dintre ei ii place sa controleze, am simtit si eu asta. Iti da sfaturi, nu neaparat spunand mare lucru, pe care insa vrea neaparat sa le urmezi. Nu am vazut editari serioase de-ale sale in ultima vreme, mai mult chestii de stil, asa ca o sa ma abtin sa le caracterizez pentru moment. Totusi, nu cred ca el conaste foarte mult subiectele, adica cred ca editarile sale se bazeaza pe felul cum ceilalti editori si-au prezentat contributia, dacat pe continut. Despre celalalt, n-are sens sa vorbesc prea mult - el a crezut ca eu sint inamicul lui de moarte si vroia sa ma rupa in bucati. Numai atitudinea sa spune multe. Editarile sale sunt foarte-foarte stranii cand vine vorba de romani, si ar trebui sa facem front comun impotriva atacurilor neo-pan-slaviste, ca de fapt asta sunt. Putem si sa contraatacam, adica sa abordam subiecte rusesti unde ne pricepem, dar asta in timp (cel putin eu). O alta cheste: trebuie sa aducem macar un ucrainean din partea de vest. toate contributiile controversate vin fie de la rusi, fie de la ucraineni din est. Ne e vorba de romani vs ucraineni aici, ci de rusi pan-slavisti impotriva adevarului, si asta trebuie facut sa iasa la iveala. In timp, evident... Salutari, Dorin:Dc76 22:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Woow. Se pare ca stii mult, mult mai multe dacat mine, cel putin in privinta Maramuresului de Nord. Ar trebui sa explici tot ce ai scris aici si pe talkpage-ul de la articol ca sa stie lumea mai bine subiectul. Eu sa fiu sincer ma concentrez mai mult asupra zonelor pe care le cunosc mai bine: dobrogea, vrancea, bucovina, basarabia si bugeac. Despre Maramures stiu lucruri generale: stiu de pilda ca este o zona f. curata unde traditia populara romaneasca inca e foarte puternica. Stiam ca dupa primul razboi mondial, Romania a impartit regiunea cu Cehoslovacia pe baza situatiei etnolingvistice din 1919 dar si pentru ca voria ca viitoarea C-Slovacie sa-i fie un aliat puternic. Stiu ca in cele cateva sate maramuresene din Zakarpattia(Subcarpaţia), romanii sunt foarte uniti (ceea ce mai rar vezi la romani) dar si foarte bogati si sunt invidiati de toti ceilalti conlocuitori. Dapiks 04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dc76, may I request that you use English when talking in enwiki space? --Irpen

Don't care about anglo-saxon chauvinism. There is not any policy in wikipedia forbidding the usage of other languages in an user talk page, which is a space at the discretion of the user. See WP:UP. English Wikipedia is #1 because people with other languages than English contribute to it.--MariusM 11:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a civil request. There is no need to respond in that sort of tone. MariusM, your own policy of using Romanian has already been discussed on the Admin's noticeboard, as you know. They were particularly critical of your interactions with User:EvilAlex: When you want to collude (such as 3RR circumvention and meatpuppetry), you switch to Romanian, then when you delete this, you replace it with innocent messages in English as a cover-up. This was critiziced by a Romanian admin Moldovan, no less. To avoid any confusion or speculation about motives, it will be good to simply heed Irpen's very reasonable request. It is not a policy rule, but a request, and it does not cost anything to be nice about it. In the end, it will be to the benefit of all of you because for non-Romanian-speaking admins it will clear up any doubts or suspicious of untowards behavior on your part. - Mauco 13:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, you was the one who complained about my usage of Romanian language in talk pages when I did a 3RR report against you. You make misleading comments, if you reffer to Ronline as the Romanian admin who criticised me. Ronline never criticise the usage of Romanian language in talk pages. On contrary, he himself wrote messages in talk pages in Romanian. If you thought to somebody else than Ronline, please tell me who was this Romanian admin who express himself against the usage of Romanian language, as I am not aware.--MariusM 13:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am far from the only one who has commented on how you misleadingly use Romanian when you are colluding to do things that you don't want admins to be able to understand, and then switch to English for other kinds of messages (on the same page and to the same user). I was referring to this user, who is from Moldova:[4] and did not have Ronline in mind, and I've edited my comment accordingly. Now, if you want to be seen here as someone who plays fair, it might be a good idea to simply heed Irpen's request. There is nothing out of the ordinary about it, and no reason to be defensive about it unless you are trying to hide something. - Mauco 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, if anyone needs translation from Romanian, the best thing to do (in my view) is to ask for it civilly rather than to chide two people for communicating in their mutually native language. If the person won't translate their own remarks there are any number of us who should be able to do so. I can usually do this (but my Romanian is not quite good enough to deal with, for example, Romanian l33t, and I'm occasionally thrown by complex syntax); User:Biruitorul appears to be bilingual native, User:Dahn, User:Ronline, and User:Bogdangiusca are all administrators with native Romanian and excellent English. And my apologies if I've left out anyone equally active and equally capable. - Jmabel | Talk 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, I exactly did what you suggested. I asked and I did ask nice. What I got in response was Marius' escapade about Anglo-Saxon chauvinism. Neither Russian, nor Ukrainian editors ever use RU/UA languages in Wikispace. Most Polish editors don't do that either. MariusM can use Romanian all he wants in private emails or the discussion boards he sets up off-wikispace. Doing so in enwiki is simply not nice. --Irpen 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am flattered my talk page became so visitted. :) My "unwritten rule" is to answer in the same language that I have been asked, unless I want to specifically draw the people arround to pay attention to what I say. (I believe in a polylinguistic world, or if you want, I believe that in 1000 years, there will be only one, human language, and people would freely speak in 20+ dialects, such as english, french, etc.) So, I've answered in Romanian to Dapiks, because that's the language I have been asked the previous question in. We were talking about the following - I have been trying to interest some people in working jointly on some articles in sandboxes or project pages. There are two reasons for that:

1. It takes several dosen edits to write a good article. Every intermediate form has inheritently lots of deficiencies, and might suggest POVs simply because important portions of the article have not been written yet. I thought of adding a "this article is being written. this is an intermediate form" tag, but all articles on wikipedia are in a sense so.
2. I find it very annoying when my small edits are being reverted, especially when I come on a latter day with a way to improve my previous edits and respective articles, and find an automatic reversion, often with an offensive comment. I simply loose all interest in wikipedia for the next couple hours or even days when I see that, and it makes me unwilling to return to that article(s).

I see the solution to that in writting good drafts, esspecially when the article is a stub or poor (relative to what it could be). But that's a work that requires collaboration, so if you guys are interested (to work with me on articles of common interest in sandboxes), I would appreciate your inputs. With one important remark: I am busy in real life, and can not promiss anyhting about how regular I would do. I might be able to devote an entire day, but maybe nothing for a week or two. Dapiks seems interested to work with me on one such article, I hope. He was simply more receptive than others. That's what the above discussion is about. I have written it very quick, because it was late, therefore it has many typos (i have not check it the second time)

Since I will most probably continue do what I do in real life, i.e. answer in the language I am asked unless the circumstances require to answer in another, if anyone sees a remark by me in a language that he or she does not understand, and is interested, just cut-paste that portion on my talk page, and I will translate it for him or her.

Or if you want, I will quote Jmabel: For what it is worth, if anyone needs translation from Romanian, the best thing to do (in my view) is to ask for it civilly rather than to chide two people for communicating in their mutually native language.

I will give a summary of my previous answer (which is in Romanian). I am pleased when people want to hear me; I am not doing this for obligation, but to please a civilized request. If anyone wants more details, feel free to follow the rule in bold above.

Dapiks: impresia mea e ca rutenia carpatica si maramuresul de nord sunt acelasi lucru doar ca au nume diferite. Poate ar fi bine ca sa "merge" articolul tau in rutenia subcarpatica

My impression is that the carpathian ruthenia and northern maramures are the same thing but have different names. Maybe it makes sense to "merge" your article in subcarpathian ruthenia.

After my reply he summarizes what knowledge about northern maramures he has, and suggests to relate my answer in the talk page.

Summary of my answer:

Subcarpathian ruthenia is not the same thing as northern maramures. In middle ages in the kingdom of hungary there were 3 counties neighboring maramures: Ung (Unguras in romanian sourses), Bereg, and Ugocsa (Ugocea in romanian sourses). They were inhabitted 1/2-2/3 by ruthenians (rusyns), and the rest were slovak, hungarian, romanian. ung and bereg have altitudes from 100m to 2000m, ugocsa - only plains and hills. Until 20 century Subcarpathian Ruthenia was an ethnic, not political designation (like "tatarian budjak" - it doesn't mean that only tatars lived there, but rather where you see some tatars is "tatarian budjak"), and until 16th century N. Maramures was not part of it. In today's Ukraine, they often mean the same thing by Transcarpathian Region (Oblast) and Subcarpathian Ruthenia, and it is said to consist of 4 former counties. In that context it isn't always relevant to them that 1/3 of what was county Ung is in Slovakia, 1/4 of Bereg in Hungary, 1/4 of Ugocsa and 40% of Maramures in Romania. The name Subcarpathian Ruthenia was fistly used in a political sence in Czechoslivakia between the two world wars.

It is better that ukrainians write about subcarpathian ruthenia or transcarpathian region as a whole. But we (Dapiks and me, i.e. who got interested) can seriously contribute about northern maramures.

Two phenomena changed the ethnic map after 16 century: "galician colonization" (16 century only), and gradual migration of ruthenians from bereg and ugocsa to northern maramures (16-19th centuries). The result was that in 1918 there were 150,000 ruthenians and hutsuls in maramures. "galician colonization" means that 3 "mountain tribes", boiko, lemko, and hutsuls, have spread from northen part to certain regions (in the interior of mountain valleys, not in the plains) on the south part with respect to mountains' crests: lemko, mostly from galicia today in poland to regions in ukraine, but mostly in today's slovakia, in Ung and Zempeln counties; boiko - to mountain regions in Ung and Bereg counties; hutsuls, that lived in Pokuttia, that is southern part of today's region Ivano-Frankovsk (Stanislau) - to Bukovina and north-eastern Maramures. In Austiran censa the term rusyns is used alike for those that live in the region from 8th century, and for those from 16th-19th centuries. The region inhabitted by Hutsuls in N. Maramures corresponds roughly to the former Tissa district (1 out of 11 districts of the county). Today, this is the Rakhiv (Rahau) raion minus about 7 Romanian villages, i.e. approx 70,000 people. Boiko regions in Transcarpathia are around 50-100 thousand and lemko -fewer than that.

I also say that I realize that a part of the information that I included in my draft will be eventually erased. But, since I did learn a lot of new stuff in the last 1-2 years that i read about this, I have gathered some info also about Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa, and about Transylvania in general, so that it can help us in understanding the context of phenomena / events. These parts will have to be shortened, obviously. I also say that I put some pictures and maps, so at least he can copy them for later reference, because most are from internet, and not by me. Wikipedia erases them automatically in 7 days if copyright is not specified.

I also metion that it would be nice to have at least one ukrainian from the western part around.:Dc76 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'll most def. help you with the map, even though my maps are not very popular, if you take a look at the fuss that the last one created at the Romanians talkpage. I also saw a very nice map that you yourself had in that link that you send me with maps of N. Maramures. Anonimu is very good in making maps as well. I took a look over the article and ajusted some awkward sentences. But what would make the article really great is if you could provide a source for the historical part. That would make the tag about "sources" go away. Numai bine.Dapiks 22:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, are you talking about this Northern Maramureş or this User:Dc76/project1 ? I have not recently editted the article itself (it was someone else!), because I wanted to do a large expansion, to include not just general info and some history, but also various data, cultural stuff, expanded geography and history, and I wanted at least 1-2 other people to read it while in project, and I don't expect it to leave that state in less than several weeks. The article, as is now, is good for now. And I don't see anything controversial, on the contrary. But if we can expand, why not? What you did tonight is an excellent job, and I appreciate it very much - N.M. has a decent entry in wikipdia now. But it can have even a better article. Only you will need to waste some 20+ minutes only to read... :Dc76 22:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Cainicova.jpg and others like it

Thanks for uploading Image:Cainicova.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. - Wikipedia automatic message

I am aware of the problem. If I will not find the complete copyright data for these files, I will remove them even before Wikipedia will remove them automatically.:Dc76 00:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Bessarabia

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 06:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are aware: I'm not the one who put a POV tag on this. Grafikm fr did. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me so quick. Yes, I can see that from the "history", but it was just fair to use this occasion to ask everyone his/her oppinion, maybe there is something you see as a problem, even things not stong enought to need a tag. You seem to have taken pains already to go through this article.:Dc76 07:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It generally looks all right to me. Biruitorul 17:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Transtalk

DC, you wrote: "I understand that even if the page would be now unblocked, none of us would do edits before agreing upon them in the talk page."
Yes, this is the general idea. It has "always" been like that (I am deliberately putting this word in quotes), but we have all neglected this rule occasionally. You did it with the history section, I did it with the crime section, MariusM did it with the political section and a border issues section, and EvilAlex did it lots of time. Others are guilty of breaching the rule, too, despite the fact that it has been a prominent part of the top of the Talk page for ages. It sits in the template: A call to prior discussion before making any changes which are not minor. If we can all adhere to it, AND strictly admonish and revert those who don't, then I think that we are accomplishing a lot. It will require a significant amount of self restraint (on your part, too). - Mauco 13:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't here the last few days. Yes, I definitevely agree with you. I am sorry about not knowing this convention when I was editting the history section. Do you have any objections about that section, or it's just the "code of conduite"? If I remember correctly, there were only a couple minor things I discussed then with you, but we quickly settled those, and noone else raised any question. So, if it's just about the "code", your point is understood and taken.:Dc76 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanians

Thanks! :-) Khoikhoi 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What for? I was thinking you might come to blame me now.:-) :Dc76 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For correcting the number. ;-) ла реведере (that's my Moldovan), Khoikhoi 23:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

:):):) You are welcome. The upper number now is 25.23. And I know where about 1.5 more come from: Serbia (the Vlachs) and Israel (the Jews from Romania). The simplest solution would be to list both numbers - highest and lowest, and allow a reader to see what is counted and what is not. Of course we have to be a little bit more logical and consistent. Here are two issues to examplify what comes to my mind now:

• Is it ok to give the same "weight" to "Moldovans" from Ukraine, who speak Romanian as a mother tongue and many will be counted as "Romanians" in 2011 on one side, and to the difference for USA, where one counts people who have 1/4 or 1/8 Romanian ancestry, and have a different ancestry in bigger proportion? It seems to me, but others would point to the differnt native laguages. I sincerely don't know what to say in such a case.
• If one counts the Jews from Romania, how about the Saxons? And they do speak excellent Romanian, I could see it myself, even when they live in Germany for already 20 years!

Ultimately the question is, Is the term "Romanian" inclusive or exclusive? Can one be American and Romanian, Jew and Romanian, German and Romanian, Moldovan and Romanian, Vlach and Romanian? But even if we say inclusive, still one can say that Moldovans and Vlachs can be regarded as a part of Romanians, while noone would say that all Germans, Jews and Americans are Romanians.

ла реведере is correct. There were much more complicated rules in Cyrillic alphabet than in Latin one, because some sounds would not fit the letters, or would give alternatives that do not exist in spoken language, or would make similar words be written very differently. In fact, when Moldovan wikipedia existed, it contained many grammatical mistakes. People think that you can take a latin text and make it cyrillic. Many editors did not know that is not true, or thought they knew the rules in cyrillic when they clearly did not. Well, sometimes there are 10 options, and only 1 is "correct". It is, on the other side easier to take cyrillic and make it latin, almost never being more than 1 option. This was one reason why it was easy to switch in 1989, and very difficult in 1940.:Dc76 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yakovlev

Hi Dc76. You write here [5] that it is a "fact" that Vasilii Iakovlev "was criminally indicted." Do you mind filling me in on the details (by whom, when and for what)? I haven't ever heard of this. Thanks! jamason 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I appologize, it is my mistake. It is Gennadii Yakovlev, not Vasillii Iakovlev. Sorry. :Dc76 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Northern Maramureş

Hello. I've done some cleanup on your article and I would like to point out that the number of articles dealing with roughly the same area is growing rather high: Maramureş (disambiguation), Northern Maramureş, Máramaros, Carpathian Ruthenia, Carpatho-Ukraine, Zakarpattia Oblast, Maramureş County, Maramureş (historical region), etc. Granted, they all deal with distinct entities, but a few of us should make a concerted effort to reduce overlap, harmonize the information contained within, create links to the other articles where needed, etc. Also, maybe we could have one page where all the differences between these are summarized, though I'm not sure what you'd call it (perhaps the pre-existing Maramureş page could be used, though probably we should pick a more neutral name since Hungary and Ukraine also have links to the region). Biruitorul 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, find my answers pointwise:Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you've made some useful suggestions, but I beg to differ on a couple of counts.

You don't have to beg, I am rational person who hears and understand. :) :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"I beg to differ" is an expression, maybe akin to "daţi-mi voie să-mi exprim dezacordul". I'm not literally begging you. Biruitorul 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I hope i did not offend you. :):Dc76 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No offense given; none taken! Biruitorul 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I think Carpatho-Ukraine is useful because it's very in-depth and because it was in fact an independent state, briefly. It naturally covers a lot more than just that one day, though, because that wouldn't be a very interesting article and because you need to discuss the previous few months in order to understand March 14-16, 1939 properly. It basically stops at the end of March, which is good, and Carpathian Ruthenia mainly covers the pre-1938 history, with Zakarpattia Oblast going forward.

Well, in that case we should make that clearly at the very begining of the article, somthing like "This article deals with Carpatho-Ukraine, the political entity that existed in March 1939 For other periods, see Carpathian Ruthenia and Zakarpattia Oblast". Or something like that. And, I think I saw a better map in a non-English wikipedia, either in the Slovak or in the Hungarian one, one with the exact booundary in 1939, which is slightly, not very much different from todays. So that article would have to have some small adjustments, but preserved.

BTW, on 14 March Slovakia declared independence, Carpatho-Ukraine declared independence from 1-day independent Slovakia on the next day. :) But, yes, the events (1938-1939) leading to that, do have the merit to be mentioned here rather than somewhere else. Just as in Northern Maramures I intend to mention the enevts that led to the separation (1918-1920) in that article and not somewhere else. :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the note sounds like a good idea. Also it occurred to me that maybe a vertical template like this one might be good. Biruitorul 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the problem is .... I don't know to do tamplates. Once you started it, I will figure out how to adjust is, if necessary. But, could you please start this template?:Dc76 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll put in a sample template on the project page.

Northern Maramureş covers, well, Northern Maramureş, which is not all of Transcarpathia, so that too is legitimate. Likewise with Maramureş County, a present-day political unit.

yeap :Dc76

But now it gets tricky. I agree that Máramaros and Maramureş should be used for pre-1918 history. Maybe the first for 1870-1918, the second for pre-1870.

Yes, if you want two separate articles. It does not cost anything to ask the main editors of Máramaros if they have any objection to writing a single article for pre-1918 or two for the periods that you have indicated. :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be User:Markussep. Biruitorul 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, i will have to write him. thanks:Dc76 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And they would cover, I think, present-day Southern (Romanian) and Northern (Ukrainian) Maramureş, right?

That is correct, "and". Well ... present day Maramures county contains some extra lands (Baia Mare in particular) that prior to 1918 were part of Satu Mare county, but that changes nothing for our discussion. :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And yes, Maramureş (historical region) seems silly (we could write something called "Sătmar" for the historical region); Maramureş will supplant that.

Yea, that makes sense :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Historically speaking, then, I see a nice template forming to guide people through history: Maramureş (pre-1870) | Máramaros (1870-1918) | Carpathian Ruthenia (1918-1939) and ro:Judeţul Maramureş (interbelic) (1927 (de jure)-1938) | ...OK, it gets pretty complicated after that.

Oh, now I see your point about Máramaros (1870-1918) as a separate article. But I don't understand one thing: when you want to write an article say ro:Judeţul Maramureş (interbelic) (1927 (de jure)-1938), what else but area, capital, and list of localities will you include? You surely don't want to include a geography of Maramures in every article 1927-1938, 1938-1940, etc etc. Or do you? So the question is: what info exactly goes in these articles 1927-1938, etc? I can understan what goes in the "oldest" (most of history) and in the "newest" (most of geography, population, economy):Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, let me try to explain better. Essentially, the idea is that Romania underwent a number of geographic reconfigurations between 1918 and 1968, when the current judeţ boundaries were essentially set. I don't know what the divisions were from 1918 to 1927. From 1927-38 you had these. Then from 1938-40 Maramureş was here. Then from 1940 to 1948 (I think) the old judeţe came back. I don't know about '48-'52 and '60-'68, but from 1952-60 it was in Regiunea Baia Mare (map: here). In terms of political subdivisions with hard statistics (population, religion, etc.), we will eventually have articles for all of those, for the whole country. But it would be absurd to write an article for Romanian Maramureş (1918-27), Romanian Maramureş (1927-38), etc. So to simplify matters, let's plan on one article discussing mainly history that covers Maramureş in Romania (1918-1968), with a similar title, and then Maramureş County would deal with post-1968. None of this is definitive, but do you now see what I'm aiming at? Biruitorul 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are aiming at, and I agree with you. But I would rather include all post-1918 history in the "latest" Maramures County. You know, although the administrative division was changed in 1968, that was a minor event in the history of the territory. And how are you going for example to divide the Sighet prison into pre-1968 and post-1968 detainees? :) Anyway, if you find something to accomodated both your last suggestion, and this my obsrevation, I agree with you beforehand.:Dc76 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Even though it was part of Hungary in 1940-4, but we'll mention that and put in a link to Northern Transylvania. And I agree, 1918-present is probably better, and articles like "Regiunea Baia Mare" will contain mostly just statistics. Let's put the history here, right? I'll let you do the bulk of the work, especially as I lack good sources right now, but I will certainly help with grammar, etc. And don't rush; I will also be fairly busy in the coming days. Biruitorul 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But the idea of a template is a good one, I think, to help us sort things out. Biruitorul 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is good. Just bear with me a little longer, and help me regarding to my last question above, so I understand it now rather that having to discuss this again and again later. :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Romania?

What on Earth are you talking about? How am I categorizing people? I was referring to the one or two editors who were leaving nasty edit summaries towards each other. This is not a generalization. I don't know where you got this notion from. Nishkid64 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not categorized anyone. But when you will leave, the users who push the ill-ment POV do categorize, and they will refer to your block, because you said "all namecalling has ceased and disputes have been resolved". They interpret that as one side disputes, while the other calls names. Of course, that does not result from what you said, but after you will leave, they will say it does. I am not blaming you of anything, all you did was 100% logical and correct. I am just telling what is the effect, hoping you can help bring this issue up, so such incidents can be avoided in the future. :Dc76 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious

Why can't someone be Romanian and Moldavian? I'm not sure if it's the same thing, but I can claim legitimately to be Californian and American, and, by associations of blood, quite a few other nationalities. Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm just curious.--Vercalos 17:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself both Moldavian and Romanian, and most of my countrymen, Moldavians consider themselves Romanians, too. My answer to your question is yes. Dahn's answer to your question would be no, if I understood him right. And if I understood him right, Moldovans are not "true" Romanians.

There are a couple of comparisons you can make: Austrians are also Germans, French Swiss are also French (not by citizenship, but by language), German Swiss are Germans (again not by citizenship, although there are, and quite a few, cases of people having both German and Swiss citizenship. They are considered German, even though Swiss dialect is notorious).

And, if you wish, I can try to make the comparison USA/Canada. But to be close to the Romanian/Moldova case, imagine that no other country in the world speaks English as official (no England, Australia, New Zeland, South Africa), so it's only restricted to USA and Canada. We would also have to suppose the language is called "American", not "Canadian" or "English", to correspond to "Romanian", not "Moldovan" or a some third name. The question is, are "Canadians" also "American" because they speak "American" language? Dahn's arguments, to me, are like saying Because Canadians indicated their ethnicity in the census as Canadians, they can not be considered Americans as well. To be considered Americans, they would have had to declare themselves Americans. My point was, that if Canadians indicate themselves only as Americans, then they have not indicated what part within Americans they are. Most of Moldavians want to say not only that they are Romanians, but specifically Moldavians, knowing that that does not contradict being a Romanian. If they choose Romanian, and have never said that within the group Romanians they are Moldavians, then the group Moldavians is undercounted, because one can not assume that a Romanians is a Moldavian (there are a lot of Romanians who are not Moldavians).

I understand that to an outsider this "quarel" might sound ridiculous, but I felt offended when Dahn said that since Moldavains declared themselves Moldavians and then pretend to be Romanians as well, then they are morons" and "cretins". I only asked him to discuss the question of whether the term Romanian is inclusive or exclusive "academically", separtae from denigratory characterizations of a group.

Do you understand my point? Does it make sense to you? I would really appreciate if you could point me where is my mistake that I ended up in this non-sense discussion. Maybe I misunderstood something Dahn said, but he does not want to say that I misunderstood him... Anyway, thank you for care.:Dc76 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be inclined to write that "Many Moldavians consider themselves to be part of the greater Romanian culture." But as you pointed out, I'm an outsider, so probably wouldn't really understand the concept accurately. And strangely enough, outside of the US, not many people refer to themselves as American(at least that I've heard). I suppose it might have something to do with the negative connotation "American" has taken in the world view, and that most Canadians and Mexicans would rather be known as Canadians and Mexicans respectively than be associated with the US.--Vercalos 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Many Moldavians consider themselves to be part of the greater Romanian culture." That is absolutely fine with me, that is true and accurate. If Dahn would accept that, it would be great! It would stop the stupid discussion under the word "many".

As for "American", the name refers more often to citizen of USA, not quite as in the case of Romanian. The comparison was not real-life, also because the language is called English, not American. And the conotation one day can be very differnt in 50 or 100 years. Maybe my exaple was completely off. Anyway, you understood "my POV" about Moldavians and Romanians :Dc76 18:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Salut, a zis Bonny sa-l contactezi la bonaparte_der_kaiser@yahoo.de. Numai bine! Greier 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

He told me this long ago as well, and I replied him that I would rather prefer not to get into emails with people, after so much hatred as I saw around on Wikipedia. If I would know a person personally, meet him/her in real life - ok, that's different. But I am afraid that if I give to some, even very civilized user, my full info, he/she being in good faith and without even noticing could slip it to some bad-intended users. My point is, if I have a problem with a real person - it's one thing, it gets very quickly resolved. With a anonimous "user" - I can do nothing. They can harm me, and I can not even ask their name. So if you meet me in real life, I would be very willing to talk to you by email. Otherwise I have to keep the same rule for everyone: talk to me on wikipedia only.

If it's a matter of emergency, explain the emergency, if it is life or death, of course I will email.

Otherwise there is a very simple solution: I have an account on ro.wikipedia as well, the same name [6]. Anyone can leave me a message there. Is Bonny blocked there as well? I can not promiss to follow anyone's instruction, even of people I admire, but I can and will read and judge everything logically. :Dc76 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom

See my answers at the Partium discussion page, Regards --fz22 21:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanians article

Salut! The anon I've been reverting is NorbertArthur, who is currently blocked for 6 months. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks states that:

A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked.
Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Many admins revert all edits from blocked users and re-make the good edits under their own names, to avoid confusing other admins who may be monitoring the same users.)

So, even if Arthur is making good points, he's not supposed to be editing Wikipedia. This is why he should be reverted on sight. In fact, he has a long history of personal attacks, and so much to the extend that I've recently proposed for him to be banned for good. Regards, Khoikhoi 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Salut, I only agree with SOME of his points. But the issue is not that. To support a point the way he "supports" it is a huge disfavour to that point. The fact that some users or/and edits might be biased does not mean that one should attack them with such agressiveness and degenerate into sheer rudeness. Degenerating into rudeness is a sign of lack of argument. So, the problem here is not his points (although as I said, I don't think they are really his, some of them are universal, he just takes them and pushes them hard, really hard), it's his language.

He obviously needs to cool down, a lot, not just a little. His observation about 15 accounts is just laughable: he simply wants to justify himself in his own eyes that he can still edit on wikipedia, despite the ban. :) All the edits that he'll make the next few days/weeks will be clearly heated and immediately detectable, hence all the "users" he'll be creating now will be immediately banned.

The best would be if someone else, not you do the rv, because when he will see your name, he will react as an ox that sees read in torida, he will vandalize more, and we can do better with our time than simply reverting vandals. Now suppose that the cooling period passed...

Suppose that I would be in his place, what would I do? I would come and sign with IP the appology. In that case I would be sure that after 6 months I would be unblocked. I would know that the appology is not a sign of weekness, but of strength, not of giving up a POV, but of giving up the rude words that I would never want to be associated with my name. That's what I would do. In mean time, I would use my energy to edit say the Romanian wikipedia, that need a lot of articles. The editting process is a good way to learn good habits by RESOLVING (not heating) the disputes. That's what I would do, but him... I don't know. Every person is in the end his own master.

Khoikhoi, of course I agree that being banned, all his edits must be reverted. I would like however to ask for a small favour: if he signs an appology (which now, unfortunately, seems less than 1% likely), leave it, don't revert it. Everything else, I say revert.:Dc76 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, those are good points you made yourself. :-) I've actually opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indef. block for NorbertArthur, which you can check out if you want (although the admins make the final call). As I said, NorbertArthur has a long history of personal attacks, and I'm not sure why we should have to tolerate it anymore. Khoikhoi 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorie and sandbox

Your sandbox is in a lot of maintenance categories, would it be possible to clean it out? Rich Farmbrough, 15:01 3 December 2006 (GMT).

When I'll have some time, I promiss to do the clean up. Right now I am very busy in real life, sorry.:Dc76 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Balti

Hello, Dc76! I'm currently revising the article and would like you to check out my changes, as they may be considered POV by other editors.

I have also noticed some striking similarities between this article (History after WWII) and your Soviet occupation of Bessarabia. I wonder if the source is the same. Perhaps you might provide it to the Balti article (as well)? --Illythr 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)