This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Romani peopleWikipedia:WikiProject Romani peopleTemplate:WikiProject Romani peopleRomani people
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
I made a few edits to which Dahn called for "superflous." A few observations from my part:
For the sake of consistency, decide whether you want to use past sentence or present;
For the sake of consistency and clarity, if you translate a part of a poem with "For I shall," then don't translate a similar text from another poem with "And I shall."
I don't think Romania was ever a Principality. Perhaps during the first years of Carol I, who was first proclaimed a prince, but are you sure that officially, the country was not called a Kingdom? Nontheless, if it was a Principality, then don't link it to Kingdom; and if you want to link it to Kingdom of Romania, then don't call it a Principality.
And for the thousand time, please use comma and other punctuation mark inside the quote. It is "like this," and not "like this".
Even though Dahn has insulted my edits and my good intentions — and keeps doing that —, I will not make any complains on him. I will also say that I think this article could cover the abuse against the bears a little better. There have been many reports on the issue, yet the section on the matter remains very subtile. --Thus Spake Anittas13:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a waste of my time to reply, since some of the issues are complicated, and most just frivolous (including one that rests on what Anittas doesn't know as proof of what he may know). I took the liberty of changing the header, because I'd rather not have you smear me with various allegations whenever you get the chance. Dahn13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you go to compare the history, you can see how Dahn reverted all of my edits without even checking what I had changed; then, when he noticed that I had corrected a simple typo which read "on" instead of "an," he changed it back to "an." The punctuation remarks, however, remain in the wrong place, as Dahn prefers to be wrong rather than admit fault. --Thus Spake Anittas13:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for Christ:
those changes in "grammar" that were not utter synonyms were aberrant: "to blend in Dutch society", "and indicating that the Ursari could choose to purchase other plots" ("could choose"?! - why not "could perhaps opt to choose if they should happen to believe that they may" while you're at it?)
among the changes in "grammar": you had replaced "in retaliation" with "came after", which manipulated the data sourced
Romania was indeed a principality (no, Anittas, not "officially kingdom") from the time Cuza proclaimed the "Statut dezvoltător" to 1881. The info is best fitted in a first section for the "Kingdom" article, for distinct reasons (most of the info would coincide with the Cuza and Carol article, the single state was not recognized internationally until the 1870s, etc.). There is a common practice of using distinct titles for synonymous articles, especially when chronology imoses it. As you could have noted from the text, the name was in reference to the times of Cuza. And, if you want to question the style used, perhaps you could explain to the world just what the hell style of linking is [[Kingdom of Romania|Kingdom of Romania]] supposed to be?
there is no rule regarding punctuation inside quotes, and it seems to me that featured articles tend to have them outside, and that most established users also prefer them like that. This happens to coincide with my personal preference, especially since many quotes comming after, e.g., a comma, may not have a comma in that place in the quoted text. Dahn13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
