User talk:Criztu/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please, please, please...

... when you are making substantive edits to articles, especially deletions, make clear comments on your edits and consider discussing them on the talk page. Especially if you are going to make wholesale changed to long-established articles, and especially if your dispute is with its point of view, this should not happen silently. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:48, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Romanian Revolution again

Could I ask you to look in on User:Ratza's recent changes to Romanian Revolution of 1989? Frankly, it looks to me mostly like conspiracy-theory stuff, but he seems to have at least some documentation (the quality of which I cannot easily judge). I've marked the article as disputed, and for now, I'm not cleaning up his English, because I'd rather have it stick out like a sore thumb, but some attention to it would be welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) Tons of the same material at Nicolae Ceausescu, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, actualy I removed a couple of lines from your contribution to "Communist Romania" article myself ... I invited everybody a week ago to discuss it, since nobody answered i moved those lines to discussion page.... and yes, most of the Revolution is disputed, it is that kind of truth that can't be made public until 25 years have passed. they will soon be 15, 10 more to go. But data on december 1989 chapter is accumulating, and the declarations of the members of CPEX(COmitetul Politic Executiv) in their Trial all point to Ceausescu offered his Resignation on 17 december 1989 following the same Pattern as the rest of the East Communist Countries, but couple of his henchmen asked him to remain chief of state, wich he did. the two members of CPEX that forced his hand into resignation(following the Pattern) were Stanculescu and Vlad, Stanculescu played on both sides, organising Ceausescu's "escape" from the CC building on 22 december 1989 after he(Ceausescu) remained Chief of State, but finally bringing him down at Targoviste. just immagine, most of the members of CPEX were trialed, while Stanculescu was promoted to Head of the Army, after 1990... yes, in Romania he is regarded as the hand of the master mind behind 1989 chapter

and no, Securitate didn't fight for Ceausescu in December 1989, Securitate layed down weapons at the orders of Iulian Vlad on 22 december. at least this is the conclusions of the Trials that took place after 1989. also an Electronic War appears to have been going on over Romania in december 1989, also the number of russian "tourists" in Romania increased with 40 000 above average, altho' in 1989 there was the XVth Romanian Communist Party Congress

most of the info in wikipedia regarding december 1989 chapter is outdated, and seems taken from Voice of America and Europa Libera in 1989; in Romania there is a general consensus that december 1989 chapter is disputable, not "a revolution", not "a coup d'etat" ... 10 years from now we'll have the answer, perhaps

about Ratza additions on Ceausescu - he provides references to his sources. I am acquainted with those informations with the only reserve that all that "curageous communist activity of Dej and Ceausescu" might have been fabricated by the PCR. officialy it happened just like Ratza quoted from his sources. -- Criztu 22:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little confused: Ratza's edits were mostly this same Col. Burlan material that you now seem to be agreeing is just one account or many. Do you credit this material or not? I'm not claiming to be expert, but it all looks to me like one highly questionable and possibly self-serving account. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think I was talking about Ratza's additions to Nicolae_Ceausescu article(additions reflecting the official information on Ceausescu), while you reffered to Romanian Revolution article (additions that are not so correct ... certainly Stanculescu was not the head of Securitate) ... while there is a group of former officers that claim they plotted against Ceausescu, and the press(media) dealt with this claim, just like the theory of Hungarian interests in Transylvania in relation with december 1989 Tokes Laszlo "protest" was investigated by the media. As i said, the events in december 1989 and the fall of Ceausescu might have a "top secret" status due to implications ... so nothing is 100% certain as to who did what to overthrow Ceausescu . here an article with a couple of declarations of Stanculescu(Minister of Defence in 1989 after the death of Milea) about the december 1989 events: http://www.evenimentulzilei.ro/investigatii/?news_id=170131 Criztu 22:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Sibiu

I replied on my talk page -- Ferkelparade π 14:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

fill out a survey? +sj +

"Wikification"

Dear Criztu, I suggest that you start with Russian history - say, rename Ivan Grozny John the Fearful, see the reactions and then come to edit Bulgarian history. VMORO

Please understand i don't intend on vandalising the Bulgaria Article. the name of John Asen was Ionitsa, and not Ivan. please, if you want the name of John Asen to be recorded as Ivan Asen, bring evidence it was Ivan and not Ionitsa, or Ioan, or anything else. The posibility that John Asen to have been a vlach himself is reason for me to wikify his name. i'd like his original name to be recorded on Wikipedia, be it Ivan, Ioan, Ionitsa or else. I've opened a thread on the discussion page of History of Bulgaria Article, where i ask for the name of John Asen. Please comment on the discussion page. Criztu 17:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you have both the transliterated Bulgarian names (with original Cyrillic, if appropriate) and their Anglicised versions afterwards? That way, everyone would be happy. Similar compromises have been found for articles where the English version of a name is not the same as the original. -- Karada 17:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i've opened a thread on Talk page of History_of_Bulgaria article on 9 december 2004, expressing my intenton on wikifying the name of John Asen. since nobody answered until today, 16 december 2004, and there was the precedent of Michael (in bulgarian it is Mihail), i took it as an acceptance. then VMORO reverted my wikification edit, without discussing the issue, and since i was in the process of operating further wikification, i reverted his revert edit. i think WIkipedia has this rule of prefering the english form of christian/international names like George/Michael/John/Nicholas/etc. Criztu 18:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revolution, yet again

Could you take a look at Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989#Competing narratives? I'm trying to see if we can move toward a consensus version. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) Could I prevail on you to look in on this (and the following sections on the talk page) again? I've done a good bit of work, but there are still a lot of problems. I'd really like to get this article sorted out. It's clearly going to be arduous. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

A paragraph

Hey, what's up Criztu. About my earlier question, I already found out who wrote that paragraph on the Thracian language page: it wasn't you. It was an unregistered user. Decius 04:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moldova/Edit war

It's not just Moldova. It's 200 countries. Yes, a few of us are already on top of it. There's discussion of this on the Administrators' Noticeboard (or maybe, by the time you read this, its archives) and we seem to be reaching a solution at Wikipedia:Country infobox vote. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Mos

Hey, about the 'Mos' question: I think it is certain that the Romanian word Mos is from the same IE root as the Albanian words in question (the root is unidentified by scholars, though I think the root is mer-, 'to waste away'). Yet, by no means are such words only found in Romanian and Albanian: those Latin words that I cited (Morus, Mos, etc.) when I discussed Mos on the Dacian words talk page are most likely related to the Romanian and Albanian words, and there are some words in ancient Greek that I also connect (moschias, etc.). So, in my opinion, 'Mos' should not be disconnected from the Albanian words. I'm wondering what other ideas you have regarding this: I don't think the word 'Mos' should be connected to 'Moses', because 'Moses' is most likely from an Egyptian word that meant 'child' (meses). Peace. Decius 09:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what derivation you have for Mos, all I saw was the derivation you gave for Zalmoxis. Decius 10:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thanks Decius, i wasn't "challanging" you, i just wanted to know more from you, i am an enthusiastic in this romanian history thing, don't have a degree in either linguistics or history. I was curious about the origin of the romanian word "mos" beyond the "cf. albanian 'moshe'"(which i agree with), and you say you trace it to Indo-European, which info i find useful. I could only enumerate the word family of mo$

mo$ie - land inherited

moa$a - older(experienced) women assisting at birth

mo$tenire - heritage

mo$gai - slow acting

i'd relate Moesia and the Mesheks(i'm not sure what people were these mesheks in Ukraine, perhaps khazars - i'm thinking at "mojic" - peasant) to this "mo$" word,

about the "x" in 'Zalmoxis', i've noticed the latin Brixium which is now Brescia (read Breshia) or the river 'Argessos' in the lands of the getae, now Arge$ (read 'Argesh') in Romania (i would look also at 'Araxes' river in the lands of the Massagetae), or the word sax - in romanian sa$... what if Zalmoxis was in fact made-up of two words "Zal"+"Mox"(since it was a religious word, I'd expect something like "Bel"+"Marduk" or "Jupiter(Deus+Pater?)") and Herodotus have recorded this "sh" sound using the best available leter which was the "x" letter ? -- Criztu 10:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was gone for awhile (took a nap), but I'm back. Okay, in my opinion 'Zal' in no way can be the Getic form of 'Zeul'. The Daco-Getic word was more like Deu(s) or Zeu(s). 'Zal' would be a freakish mutation from the original IE root, Deiw-. I seriously doubt that 'Moxis' would contain the word 'mosh', because the Getic word was most likely either 'Mos' or 'Mosh', so the Greek writers should not have used a 'Xi' for the 'S' or 'Sh' sound. These are my opinions, and you are entitled to your own. 'Mos' is not connected to 'mojic' or the mesheks.Decius 01:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alba Iulia/Gyula

Hey, check out the recent discussion at Gyula Talk. I know you want to get to the truth about the etymology of 'gyula', and so do I. I think we Romanians should work together every now & then, even though we have different ideas. Decius 08:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

there's the "watch" button, so every page i contribute to, it automatically lists in "my watchlist" any consequent changes that other contribs make. -- Criztu 09:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a good chance that "Scott Moore" is in fact a Hungarian. I've looked at his list of contributions: he's either Hungarian or he has a rare and bizarre case of Magyarophilia. He's living in Hungary, and he's religiously devoted to contributing to any and every Hungarian-related article, and very rarely to non-Hungarian related articles: sounds more like a case of a Hungarian who adopted an English pseudonym so when he edits Hungarian related articles he can appear "neutral". Either way, everything must be verified. Decius 10:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of Mr. "Moore", there are often tell-tale signs left behind in the form of certain turns of phrases, agrammatical phrases, and typos that can reveal the first language (and thus even the ethnicity) of a person: for example, Romanian contributors often incorrectly spell English 'territory' (two r's) as 'teritory' (one 'r') because in Romanian we spell it 'teritoriu'. Now, let's say an anonymous User vandalizes a Hungarian article and leaves a phrase such as "All Hungary is truly to be considered Dacian teritory"---then you can safely assume the author was Romanian. I haven't wasted my time looking for such signs in the case of "Moore". But it's interesting to take note sometimes of these things. Decius 10:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe what Scott Moore says on his user page, that he is an englishman living in HU, and if you follow the debate on "Transylvania as part of Romania" you'll see that he looks charmed by the hospitality of the Hungarians (who really know how to be charming hosts, btw :) ) and wants to return them the service by listening to their POV and formulating the ideas accordingly, but he also seems an objective person in the end, as you can see from the aftermath of the "Transylvania as part of Romania" paragraph -- Criztu 11:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If he's objective, then it doesn't matter his nationality. Decius 03:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ceauşescu

I'm hoping you might help in sorting out the remaining dispute at Nicolae Ceauşescu. I've sorted out what I think should be relatively uncontroversial, and I've made comments on the remainder.

Far and away the most serious issues are in the Revolution or/and Coup section of the article, which presents Burlan's claims as if they were uncontroversial fact. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom of Vlachs and Bulgars

As you know, Bulgarians such as Vmoro and Ogneslav keep trying to "redirect" the Kingdom of Bulgarians and Vlachs article. That is no different from vandalism, because we have historical references and historical NPOV on our side. This should be settled by an arbitrator. If they keep doing it, they should be cited for vandalism, and even banned from Wikipedia for a time. Decius 11:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zdravei, Hristo

Izchakai malko vreme, za da podredia neshtata. I uspokoi onzi Decius - rumuncite sa prekrasen narod, no ne sa suzdali te sveta. Imalo e i drugi narodi, koito i sami sa mogli da imat durjava, bez rumunska pomosht. Az ne se byrkam v statiite za rumunska istoria, nali. Pozdravi :) - Ogneslav 12:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wait a little, so i can sort things out. And calm Decius - romanians are a wonderful people, but the world is not their creation. There are other people too, which were able to have a state, without romanian help, I don't touch/mess the articles from romanian history, isn't it?" -- Criztu 13:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<The frequent occurence of 'narod' in this paragraph is what led me to falsely suspect that it was disrespectful. 'Narod' means 'fool' in Romanian, and the word is from Slavic, so I inferred something that wasn't there. Decius 13:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

there is this romanian word "norod" meaning "people" -- Criztu 14:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but when I saw 'narod', the word that came to mind given the situation (a lot of bad energy passing back and forth) was not 'norod', but 'narod'. Both Romanian words are from Slavic. Decius 14:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

as ne sam rumanetz, as sam massagetae :) -- Criztu 13:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Im not a Romanian, I'm a Messagetae". Hmm. Decius 13:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A ti otkude znaesh bulgarski? - Ogneslav 12:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ot balgarskata televizia znam, normalno :) -- Criztu 13:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"From Bulgarian television I learned it, of course". Hmm, I think I can learn bulgarian by lunchtime. :) Decius 13:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ama, balgarskata gramatica e dosta cato rumanskata, Ogneslave, misliam ce znaesh che Martenitza i Martsishorul sa excliusivno rumunski-balgarsku obichai, nali ? triabva edno "Martenitza-Martsishor" wikiArticle, kakvo kazvashi ? -- Criztu 13:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He-he, sure... I never heard of Martsishor - tell me more about it. As one of my friends say: Bulgarians and Romanians are the two nations that are most similar to each other, only that they don't know it yet. And here is what I can say in Romanian:

Necazuri si suparari

toata lumea are

Ale mele sunt mai mari

Cu ce-am gresit oare?

Doamne, de ce nu vrei

Pacatele sa mi le iei?

Cu ce, Doamne, am gresit

Ca eu n-am facut nimic...

Cat a plans inimioara mea

Cat am suferit in lipsa ta

Mare, mare suparare

Cand nu esti sufletul imi moare.

Cate lacrimi am varsat

Cat am plans si am oftat

Dar nu vrei sa ma iubesti

Si din plans sa ma opresti

Pentru cat am suspinat

Cine se duce in iad ?

Pentru cat ma amageai

Cine se duce in Rai?

I know this from the Bulgarian television also :) And here's a small lexicon:

Ro. ale = Bg. ale/ala
Ro. cu = Bg. cude
Ro. gresit = Bg. gresi
Ro. lipsa = Bg. lipsa
Ro. iubest = Bg. liubis
Ro. (i)ad = Bg. ad
Ro. rai = Bg. rai

And all this is just in a short song ;) - Ogneslav 16:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ro. mea, ta = Bg. moia, tvoia
Ro. ele sunt = Bg. te sa
Ro. sa mi = Bg. da mi
Ro. plans < plange = Bg. Placha
Ro. moare = Bg. umira

- Criztu 16:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ro. 'Ale' is inherited from Latin.
Ro. 'Cu' is inherited From Latin.
Ro. 'Mea' is inherited from Latin.
Ro. 'Ta' is inherited from Latin.
Ro. 'Ele' is inherited from Latin.
Ro. 'Sunt' is inherited from Latin.
Ro. 'Sa' is inherited from Latin.
Ro. 'Plange' is inherited from Latin.
Ro. 'Moare' is inherited from Latin.
Ro. 'Mi' is inherited from Latin.
Ro. 'Lipsa' is ultimately from Greek.
Ro. 'Iad' is ultimately from Greek 'Aides' (Hades).

Decius 16:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're so cute in your efforts :)) Then how about rasplata, ispit, izbaveste, voia, in veci, sfinti, dragoste, voinic, veselie, gospodar... more?

Ok now, don't take this too serious - have fun Alexandre :) Pozdravi, - Ogneslav 16:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Martsishor e tozi obichai (rumunski "obicei") - Red-White strings gadgets, at the begining of March (Bg. Mart, Ro. Martie) -- Criztu 16:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rom. 'Martie' is actually inherited from Latin (contrary to DEX). Decius 16:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)