User talk:Illythr

Archive 1 (2006)

Moldovan Romanian

Talk:Tiraspol is not read only by you. There could be some ignorant Wikipedia editors which need explanation. You are not an ignorant, however I saw you opposed the closure of Moldovan wikipedia (vote nr. 34 for opposal on metawiki [1]). Your vote really surprised me. I don't understand the hobby of (some) Russians from Moldova to defend Moldovan identity, in fact this should not be their problem.--MariusM 19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand. As an assimilated person you supported Moldovan wikipedia, as you support Klingonian Wikipedia :-).--MariusM 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

-) Now, seriously, the althabet used in 1940-1989 is of historic relevance. But not in order to write new articles in it, for it is not a living language. It is important to give samples of texts, especially from official texts used during that period, and from literature printed at that time. It is not only about the althabet, but also what are the instances/thematics/contexts. It is non-sense to write about e-mail with that althabet, but it would be extremely valuable to provide say samples of a model birth ceritificate or a diploma, or an official text, etc. A good idea would be to start a cathegory or sub-project of the Romanian wikipedia, and make it of good quality. We should take every article that exists in Moldovan wikipedia, and everything that is useful in it, should be moved to the new sub-project. In time, it would be nice to have a similar sub-project for the middle age (slavonic) writing, and for the earlier Latin scripts (as was used in 18th and earliy 19th century in Transylvania etc).:Dc76 22:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you two think?:Dc76 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. Your protection of the Continuation War article

Ok, I may have a look at the standstill. Could you please brief me on the main disputes? I see that some users dispute the name of the article, others the content, etc. What exactly are the problems here?--Húsönd 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the details. Since it'll take me a while to analyse this and I'm currently busy with Portal:Basque, I might take some time to get back to this situation (but not more than 24 hours I hope). I'll inform you when I've gone through this. Regards,--Húsönd 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I had another look into the dispute. Regarding this section, have you tried to verify if all these accounts belong to the same banned user? You should bring the case to WP:RCU, and if the sockpuppetry is confirmed, then he's out of the dispute and everything would look much simpler.--Húsönd 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my typos!

And you are correct about Finnish: The language doesn't differentiate indefinite and definite articles. --Whiskey 00:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Been celebratin', eh? Happy New Year! :-) --Illythr 00:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Done. :-) Yeah, I have my talk page protected because of the infamous Greek Chauvinist Junta, which I am a member of. Happy new year too! By thew way, what does "Можно" mean? Khoikhoi 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ;-) Khoikhoi 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mozhno" means "it's possible". It can be used both as "it can [be done so]", and as "I agree", or "may I". :Dc76 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained that on Khoi's talk page. ;-)--Illythr 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry. I looked it in the history of this page, it wasn't there, and I cponcluded you did not. :) :Dc76 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-saxon chauvinism

You noticed my stand against anglo-saxon chauvinism, there is no need to further comment on it. Is there any user box regarding this?--MariusM 14:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

TT

Regarding Tiraspol Times, it may be interesting to look here.--MariusM 12:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Continuation War

Sorry for my revert of the continuation war. It was accidental and what I thought was vandalism was truly not. Once again, I apologize for my lack of further investigation.Plm209 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you did do the right thing, user Plm209. Your first intuition was right. User Illythr indeed is being accused of vandalism. The evidence is abundant. Suursaari 20:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's practicaly everywhere! ;-) --Illythr 21:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan nationalism

In the article you told is written: almost a million newcomers arrived from all corners of the Soviet Union. This group was quite diverse and consisted of engineers, technicians and various other specialists who arrived to rebuild and develop the industry, of many retiring officers and soldiers of the Soviet army, who were given residence upon their return from Germany, but also of many unqualified workers, or people without strong family or native land ties, many with little or no education at all, and some outright criminals. I think is accurate in general (I am not sure about the number), is not saying all of them were criminals, only some of them (some Communist activists indeed were). Regarding EvilAlex's comment, is in Russian, I don't understand. Regarding Dabija's article, I heard about it, is stupid, but I think you should check also the reaction of PPCD (former Popular Front) at this article. I will check if I can find a link for you in this subject.--MariusM 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I've noticed you reffered at an early version of the article, which was changed meantime. In Wikipedia anybody can write, but anyway, edits made in 2006 at Wikipedia are not relevant for atmosphere of 1990 in Moldova.--MariusM 21:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rusoaicele de Dabija

Check this article from Jurnal de Chisinau [2]. Quote: Situaţia s-a agravat după apariţia articolului lui N. Dabija “Rusoaicele –2”, care, pe lângă fondul corect al problemei, conţinea şi câteva afirmaţii greşite. Propaganda comunistă a declanşat un atac masiv asupra redactorului-şef al “LA”, învinuindu-l, fără nici un temei, de xenofobie. Agenţia de stat “Moldpres”, ziarele guvernamentale “Moldova suverană” şi “Nezavisimaia Moldova”, Televiziunea controlată de comunişti – acestea au fost primele instituţii mass-media care, rupând unele fraze din context, au pornit un atac furibund împotriva Uniunii scriitorilor, a partidelor de opoziţie PSL şi AMN, împotriva liderilor Oleg Serebrian şi Serafim Urechean şi, prin ricoşeu, împotriva presei independente. În acest cor dirijat de comunişti s-a făcut auzită vocea distinctă a liderilor PPCD Roşca şi Cubreacov, care au lovit cel mai tare în Dabija şi, implicit, în PSL. As you see, the criminals Rosca and Cubreacov were again against the national unity of Moldovans, giving the hardest hits to Moldovan national hero Nicolae Dabija. If you have problems with translation, I can help you. BTW, Romanian poet Adrian Paunescu told once that Cubreacov has a Russian-Lipovan (starover) ancestry, however I heard Cubreacov himself telling he is Romanian, who knows the truth?--MariusM 19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the full Dabija article, only comments about it. Roşca and co didn't have to criticise Dabija, as Dabija was not a member of their party. Is not a usual thing that a political party take position against an article in a newspaper. You seemed to be not aware about differences between Roşca and Dabija, and I just gave you an example that those differences exist. Criticising Dabija, Roşca attracted critics from Moldovan-language press, as you can see, while I doubt he gained many votes from Russians, this is why I doubt it was only a politicianist attack (however, personal fight with Dabija could play a role). I heard Dabija made a film in electoral campaign "Opriţi-l pe Iuda", Iuda (symbol of treason) being Roşca. Main difference is that Dabija, in 1988-1989, was adept of the idea of an united front of Moldovans, including communist party members, while Roşca was anticommunist. Literatura şi Arta gave a warm wellcome to Petru Lucinschi when he was apointed chief of MCP, I remember at front page was writen a letter from a reader: "I gave to my newborn baby the name Petru, in honour of the nomination of Petru Lucinschi as head of MCP". Dabija, and, by extension, Writers Union group, wanted to influence Communist Party leadership in favour of national movement demands, while MPF wanted to replace Communist leadership. This is not a black and white situation, Literatura şi Arta asked readers in 1990 to vote, among others like Snegur, Lucinschi, also for Roşca. In the same time, while MPF didn't had its own newspaper, they were dependent on Literatura şi Arta for publishing their positions and tensions were hidden. After MPF managed to publish its own newspaper the tensions were revealed and Roşca was accused for destroying the national unity of Moldovans. Anyhow, for the position of MPF - actual PPCD, you can see the fact that it was accepted in Christian-Democratic International organisation, while other parties which ask membership in this organisation, like Greater Romania Party of C.V. Tudor, was not accepted. Christian Demicratic International organisation don't accept sovinist parties as members.--MariusM 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dabija's article is not a prove that his historical research is wrong, especially when it is confirmed by Upson Clark and Magocsi.--MariusM 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding inflamatory words, this is not a one-side story. I do remember photos published in Moldovan press of 1989 with slogans writen on walls like "Moldovan - mulî", "Moldovan - baran" (I still don't know what baran mean, I guess something bad) and comments about such type of words adressed to Moldovans in various occasions or hostile attitude against Moldovans trying to speak in their language in a meeting. I remember also photos with Moldovan-language public inscriptions destroyed or covered with paint. We can think who is more guilty, those who write on walls insulting slogans or destroyed Moldovan inscriptions, or those who publish reports about those facts (worse scenario being that the same people are doing both). Maybe we should consider all those as an inevitable aspect of the freedom of speech - you can not have freedom of speech in a multinational empire like Soviet Union without some ethnic tensions, especially when the freedom is granted after +50 years of lack of freedom, and the ethnic relations were not a result of natural development, but of forced development which included repressions, killings, deportations etc.--MariusM 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Illythr, I'll get back to you in a bit on the "neo stalinism". Unfortunately, I have to log off now. But for now, please go to http://news.google.com/?q=Moldova&ie=UTF-8 (or just news.google.com and type in Moldova). This is obviously a time sensitive link. Look for the "MediaFax" story from Romania. I'll upload the full information and screenshots within the next 24 hours, but at least you can see this for yourself for now. Later from me: screenshots and additional background on what happened here. - Mauco 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied to you on my talk page. BTW, do you know how to "archive" some old discussion? I want to archieve mine for 2006 (it's a section in my talk page). Thank you. :Dc76 02:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thesis

Hi Illythr. I just sent you an email. If it doesn't get to you for some reason try contacting me at: jamason at umail d0t ucsb under the education superdomain. Cheers! jamason 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(PS...I forgot to update my email address, so when you reply send it to the email address above and not the one provided in the wikipedia email.)

Ok, replied. --Illythr 02:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Neo-stalinism"

Please see my talk. I finally uploaded the screenshots, along with running commentary. I am not paranoid. It was just funny, that's all. I am sure that some young journalist (an intern, no doubt) got chewed out by his boss that day. - Mauco 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Maybe you and Whiskey can take turns being puppetmaster. Heh.

Well I didn't really consider our Art Dominique/Kven user friend's absurd claims to be truthful. But checkuser rules are very specific... if you don't present something just so-and-so, they'll decline the request. I thought that if a checkuser was run, it would be one more bit of proof that his claims are stupid nonsense. For example, if he makes a new sock account, edits a few articles normally, then tries to trick some uninvolved admin into blocking you all. Now there is no question.

Do you like Moldova? I want to visit sometime. Good wine, I hear. :-) TheQuandry 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of sovereign states

Nice to see you participating in that discussion. I left a reply for you there. Dpotop 09:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

Hi, IIlythr. The vote issue did occur to me - but in the end, these things are not meant to be binding. Perhaps a note could be left beside the polls explaining the situ, but either way, it shouldn't make a massive difference.

Similarly, the statement thing, or an agreed block from Transnistria and List of unrecognised countries did occur to me. First of all, the fact that neither appear to have requested unblocks makes me think that maybe they're accepting that this is a reasonable cooling off period. I don't know - hopefully once this block is over the problem will be solved and I think in the long run the page needs their edits. --Robdurbar 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Illythr. I hope I was not too hasty to do changes to the article Transnistria. I have not touched any of the things related to the issues under voting, including the introduction, Name, Geography (the text), etc. And I think we should let those in discussion for a couple of days (what do you think?) I am basically done: I think that if the 6 issues now being discussed are resolved and corresponding changes made everywhere in the article, then the article looks all right to me. Are you aware of any other problems?

About the list in Geography section that you have commented out, I agree. It was just an issue not to forget. But I will refrain from starting that article until we decide where to put that info, since we as ordinarry users can not detete stupid articles. So my question to you is: where should we put that info? You see, we can not list that at localities of Transnistria, since it's Cocieri, Cosnita, etc which are in Dubasari district, and Tighina, which anyway is a totally separate discussion (I think Tighina should be listed twice: as Moldova lists it, i.e. separately, and also in Transnistria, with mention that it's in the buffer zone.):Dc76 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robdurbar, that the page (and related) benefit(s) (informationally) from Mauco and Marius, so in the long run we need them very much. But now we can achieve some version without them, and see how they react to it. We should definitevely allow them to contribute with new stuff (in time there will be developements), or with some constructive proposals that would be supported by the rest of the group. But if anyone of them starts editting exactly the issues that we will now agree during the truce (we hope we will), then we will have to boldly step in.:Dc76 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

fixed the link, shortened the battle description, added "murdered" back, as linking "died" to Ensatzgruppen kinda defeated the whole point) Sorry, did not mean about Ensatzgruppen, must been thinking about something else. Died of malnutrition or killed/murdered by ensatzgruppen is factually correct. :Dc76 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If I don't answer here, check also here.:Dc76 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OSD

I think he messed up. I'm ODB. ;-) Khoikhoi 01:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote from Steve Huey, "it was difficult for observers to tell whether ODB's wildly erratic behavior was the result of serious drug problems or genuine mental instability." XX, Khoikhoi 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I have responded to your concerns here.

Though Im not going to make an issue on the subject,I think we should strive for more accuracy.Nadirali نادرالی

Pridnestrovie

Hi,

I am not sure about an edit I made on Transnistria. Does Pridnestrovie mean "By/near the Dniestr", or "Under the Dniestr". I'd say the first, but you are better qualified. What is the base Russian word used in composind Pridnestrovie? Dpotop 19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm not a linguist, either. All the Russian I know is, in fact, Bulgarian, learned by watching their TV during the last years of the Ceausescu regime. So, I somehow knew the sense of "pri-", but was not sure of it. :) Do you know of some online Russian dictionary where I could find this preposition? I intend to write a statement in "Names of Pridnestrovie" to say that "Transnistria" is from a Western perspective, whereas "Pridnestrovie" is the Eastern one. What do you think? Dpotop 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"UN Report"

Please follow the link, open the report( is a .pdf file) and start reading...after that maybe you want to made some changes...I was to soft ... Catarcostica 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On the actual report....there is a link on the page with the text of the document ( .pdf) I will provide you with the link if you can,t find it http://www.saferworld.org.uk/publications.php?id=211

Please read the report. I am planning on made some other changes base on it. Thanks!!! -Catarcostica 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I already did write on talk page a few days ago.

And I was more than neutral.. I should write this : This is one more proof that in Tiraspoltimes you can found only and only lies.

I did not ignore the other conclusions on that report. I let in the paragraph from the OSCE even over is written in bold : "A number of EU officials warn that the absence of evidence does not mean weapons smuggling does not take place."

I also let in the conclusion that is today is no evidence of guns production or selling. Next: I am planning to change the line about transparency. You can find in report that is no cooperation and transparency from transdnistria gov. If you have a different opinion please mail me this days before the change. Thanks!!! ( As you can see from my main page I'm native speaker of Romanian language. We can used if you want.) -Catarcostica 22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WOW, thanks for the tiraspoltimes page. I did'n know about this page. Thanks again!!! -Catarcostica 22:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep...good one...I agree with you about this. Now...about MariusM project, I don't know if I can help him, I just have a bit different opinion and I'm not there to now what exactly is happening over there. You can include your remarks if you want. Thanks!!! -Catarcostica 03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changes in the crime section. Its look more neural than mine. Noroc!!

-Catarcostica 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation

Hi, I am sorry to ask you this, and I am sorry about having arrived at this stage of relations with Anonimu on Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, I guess you are aware of it. Do you feel like not worth trying to reconcile us, or maybe you have deep desire to waste several hours (not today, for I am gone in 30 mins) to do volunaty pacifying work? :-) I don't know how he would regard you, after all he said he objects to everyone Moldovan. But I hope he did not think much when used the word "moldovan", so maybe you can fit his "criteria". Whatever it will be, honestly sorry about arriving here and having to ask for you time.:Dc76 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about Anonimu's intentions and goals, but his behavior is rather aggressive. Hm. I intend to post some comments on the page soon. --Illythr 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions about Gagauzia

1. Why did you revert this? Of course, the Moldovan language page says it is only the name of the Romanian language as (often) used in Moldova. So I don't see any preference between the two. Maybe, taking into consideration the fact that this change can appear again and again in this article many times by whomever will read it, we can preemptively change to Moldovan (Romanian), effectively shutting the mouth of everyone? Moldovan legislation says both that the Moldovan language is official (constitution), and that it is a form of "Moldo-Romanian linguistic identity" (declaration of independence, and 1989 language law), so my interpretation of it is that Moldovan (Romanian) is perfectly all right, and does not infringes on anyone's political view to the Moldovan ethnic identity. I don't mean your political view, I am talking in general.

2. Taking into consideration that I have recently learned on my skin that diacritics should be preserved in English (I moved Maramureş to Maramures + changed in the texts of many articles, and had an admin to move back and help me revert what I did), I wonder what is your experience about them. And in this context, shouldn't it be "Găgăuzia"? :Dc76 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Well, my general idea with the "Ro/Mo" issue is that with things concerning the politics, like the "State language" and official names of places in Moldova (in the state language) the word "Moldovan" should be used. In purely linguistic things, like explanations of a word's meaning, "Romanian" is OK, IMO.

2."Gagauzia" seems to be an established English name that survived the (re)romanization of geographic locations of Moldova (like "Kishinev"->"Chişinău"). An interesting issue here is the city Tighina, which, according to Moldovan legislation is called "Bender", but is still called "Tighina" in many encyclopedias (see the article's talk page). --Illythr 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. a) My general idea is to prefer Moldovan (Romanian) in things concerning politics, and the rest like you. The reason is that (apart from the fact that I consider myself a nationalist (in the positive sense)) the most often used name for the official language in Moldova is neither Moldovan, nor Romanian, but as you also mentioned it several times today limba de stat.

1. b) For the fundamental law for Gagauzia, I would have been very surprised to see there Romanian, knowing under what governance it was adopted (end of Sangheli). I did not revert anything, nor insisted on all names, but rather started a discussion on the totality of the issue to find out what is reasonable and what is not. In that case you have a point.

2. a) Yes, so my question is, is Gagauzia a more established name in English than Maramures?

2. b) Yes, so we have to list something like Tighina (Bender). Any other way?

2. c) I do not believe "Kishinev"->"Chişinău" is Romanization or re-Romanization, because the locality was founded with that name, and it continued to have that name always, only during some periods in history some foreign powers that controlled the territory imposed for that time a different name. In the article Prague one does not even mention German Prag, and the city was in a German country for very-very long period of time, much longer than Moldova was in Russia and USSR.

etc. Remember this? :-) :Dc76 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

2. a) Apparently so. Perhaps it was because Maramures is also a misspelling? I think there's some kind of convention on names of places in English...

2. b) Or maybe Bender (Tighina)... Dunno.

2. c) In case of Kishinev, the town had become known in the West under this name, due to the Kishinev pogrom, among other things. The Chisinau Airport still has its KIV designation. Prague is an established English name as well. So is Bucharest.

"etc": What's wrong with that? I kept that edit intact...--Illythr 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Colonialism

Same things can be called by different names. Maybe in Gagauzia Romanian is called Moldovan but almost everywhere else is known as Romanian and writing alternative name could create confusion in average reader. As for neo-colonialism, lack of Romanian in your babel box shows your neo-colonialist attitude. Luka Jačov 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, such must be the attitude of the Moldovan Government, then. Different encyclopedias have different opinions, by the Constitution stays the same. Perhaps we could've discussed this further, if you were less aggressive and more polite... --Illythr 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rude? You've got wrong picture, but I apologise if I was. As for Moldovan government, this is free encyclopedia and isn't obligated to respect any political decision especially those that are against the real state of things. Still you didn't explained how you managed not to learn Romanian in all those years. Regards! Luka Jačov 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this edit summary could've been anything but rude. You're supposed to assume good faith, remember? ;-) As for the cause, I still think that the current status quo is correct (Mo - official & political, Ro - linguistic). Plus, the Mo language article is there to explain the controversies and complications. As for my language - please do assume good faith. ;-) --Illythr 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I could characterize your previous edit as such aswell. However I dont quite understand your last question. If you assumed good faith I guess you would have it in your babel and show respect to native population. Luka Jačov 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Illythr, I've also wondered that :) You're English is flawless, yet you don't know the official language of your country (under whatever name)? How, why?!--Domitius 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I'll be wearing puttees from now on :)

Hi, and sorry for not getting back to you in so long (same crappy reasons, plus, as you have prolly seen, I kept myself busy with other stuff - whether I wanted to or not, sigh). Anyways, I was exploring commons and found this interesting thing. Could you please translate some of the text? (Btw, this probably confirms my belief that the puttee was a stereotype of Romanians in those times, which is both funny and sad when you think about it.) On the Goma issue: the scandal involving his antisemitism is even bigger than that, but it would have involved me translating large portions of text written by a large number of intellectual figures - this is an exhausting task, and involves another major controversy around the man, so I just gave you a taste of it from an authoritative source in English. I'll probably add more to the article on him in the near future, so the arguments will be clearly stated and referenced. Boogie down, Dahn 22:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Puttees: well, yeah, but they were standard issue over here at the time. They make me think of the last chapter in The Golden Calf - an army of peasants. No, this is definitely not Rio de Janeiro. ;)

Thanks for taking the time, man. That was a pretty relevant text, actually. I suppose the swastika dates it to post-1937 of so, when we "welcomed" it. I actually heard that A. C. Cuza claimed to have invented the swastika (or, at least, to have been the first to use it as a symbol of "the good fight"...).

By the time he was proposed for the Commission, Goma was actually involved in a conflict over his antisemitic statements with virtually all other members of the board. Interestingly, the president of the Commission, who actually invited him, did not comment on the statements (although he is Jewish), and prioritized Goma's status as a dissident. However, Goma soon relied on rumors that he had rejected him as well, and began publicly ranting with all sorts of insults and libelous theories about the man's past etc. So I would say the two controversies are intimately connected, especially after all far right advocacy groups in this country began spewing the press and the web with all sorts of material that aims to back whatever Goma says and rant against whatever the Commission did. You gotta love this country... Dahn 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Puttees: well, yeah, but that "Great War" look was rare by then (ours didn't wear boots, but exposed their puttees). I never knew if others wore the same underneath, but the Ro Army exposed them, as in the picture. If I'm wrong (and it's quite possible I'm wrong), I'm sorry. It's just that it was standard iconography for Romanians to appear in this dress in caricatures, pamphlets, etc. (Romanian ones included). In most contexts I can recall, it was associated with the image of soldiers as peasant brutes who wearing inferior and outdated equipment.

Swastika: it was not clear from the context whether it was related to "10 years from the foundation", or just "10 years from something" (especially since "10 years of occupation" would have meant ca.1928, 1932 at most). But that makes sense (and the swastika may refer to the first tentative moves towards official antisemitism). Thanks for clarifying.

Communism: what you forget is that some Romanians like to think that there was "pre-1957 communism" and "post-1957 communism", the latter culminating in "national communism" under Ceauşescu. Of course, it was the Soviets doing everything evil before 1957, and then we got our own guys to "clear" their legacy. Most of this is spurious, but it's infectious. Considering that Ceauşescu's associates included this guy, this guy, and this guy, as well as the fact that Ceauşescu became genuinely popular when he opposed the 1968 incursion in Czechoslovakia (and was openly anti-Soviet and anti-Hungarian), that, to a totalitarian mindset, he really did "improve Romania's status abroad" (some of his heralds actually claim that Romania was a great power at the time...), and that, in his later years, he began the process of rehabilitating Antonescu while sinking into treasured autarky, we can safely say that the two extremes blended (see a short mention of a related issue here and the section "A Willing Expatriate" here). This is basically it in a nutshell; what adds is that the Report did not follow this distorted view on communism, but simply stated facts as they were, and strive to condemn all that there is to condemn. Dahn 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Could I please ask you comments on Talk:Valter Roman? My neutrality and ability as an editor are being questioned by POV-pushers and the article page was protected after a user simply erased reliable sources (by claiming they were "used too much"...). A lot of articles are falling under dispute for the same reasons: a tight group of users advocates, against wiki conventions, disruptive edits on Alexandru Nicolschi, Gheorghe Pintilie, and Vladimir Tismăneanu (erasing sheer biographical data). They go about libeling me, and are now joined by an editor who claims he wants to "mediate a dispute" (over vandalized content, i.e.) while questioning whether I am a reliable editor. It is outrageous and getting out of hand, and I need neutral editors to look into it. Sorry for not responding on other issues, but there is suddenly a full-fledged attack on me (see here and here). Dahn 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Gang from Lubyanka

Please stick to no personal attacks rule of Wikipedia. I never quoted Goldfarb citations in this article - it was done by Biophys. You should really learn about the existence of article edits history, which is quite useful in these cases. I just added information that Goldafarb makes money on selling this book and he is interested person. Small but meaning detail. Just in case you should also know that your title "praise and critisism of the book" is disinformation, since you have published praises taken from the book's marketing site. And it is quite clear for mediocre readers that this site would never publish critisism of the book. This site is made in order to advertise the book, not to kill it. Once more, please do not make false accusations and stick with WP:CIV.Vlad fedorov 06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied on the book's talk page. --Illythr 10:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HIZKIAH

I've already asked someone to do a check, but upon reviewing the contributions, I have no doubts that this is Bonaparte. RfC deleted per CSD G5, by the way. Khoikhoi 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want, feel free to delete his talk page comments per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits. Khoikhoi 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. Khoikhoi 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered...I think. Khoikhoi 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that guy sure is inventive. Thanks for the no pasaran, Illythr. Dahn 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Past Leaders

I've put down a list of heads of state on the president of transnistria page. Would you say its accurate? im not sure of the early constitution and im getting conflicting reports over who lead the supreme soviet.. how does this sound? i think there is an error:

1 Different sources list him as "Provisional" Chairman of Supreme Soviet and Igor Smirnov as Chairman at same time. 2 Was imprisioned from August 29, 1991 until October 1, 1991. Andrey Panteleyevich Manoylov was acting Chairman of Supreme Soviet.

Vital Component 3/16/07