Icar

---

Revert war-only account. Blocked indefinitely. `'Míkka 03:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

---

See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Consider yourself warned. Dahn 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Presidential committee

Hello Icar,

Take a look at my edit on the Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania article. It was just the beginning, and Dahn chose to delete it nonetheless. Could you contribute by adding sources? Dpotop 12:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please

...don't call other users vandals. Doing so violates Wikipedia:Civility. Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors. Thanks, Khoikhoi 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive behaviour

As you may have noted, I repeatedly warned Dahn against disruptive behaviour. His reaction was – unfortunately – typical, simply erasing my edits. I nevertheless didn’t give up hope to help him rejoining the community and being cooperative and constructive. With users like Dahn you have to exercise a lot of patience and keep infinitely calm. It would be too bad if you loose your temper, letting others to exploit this. Only a good example of patience, serenity and perseverance will convince Dahn to reconsider his editing behaviour in the sense of teamwork. The more users will offer Dahn a strong example of coolness and resolution, the higher will be the chances for him to understand that collaboration is better than confrontation. --Vintila Barbu 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is the right procedure to engage in. However, the today's edits are very intricated and I am afraid that everybody's contributions will not be transparent enough to enable a decision.It's just an opinion. On the other hand, I think that it will be more than enough just to wait for the next situation. As for my last edit to Vladimir Tismaneanu, I had to restore Khoikhoi's version (actually Dahn's) in order to give him the opportunity of explaining his reverts. I doubt however, that he will do it. Feel free to restore the last version before the reverts of Khoikhoi. I, for one, wouldn't like to reach the 3RR threshhold.--Vintila Barbu 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You also may note that your last contributions to Nikolski and Leonte T. have been deleted--Vintila Barbu 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dahn

Using something that's technically "correct" but 100% misleading is an art that some people posses (mind those people on Wikipedia). Thanks, for the support in making that a complete information instead of a horrible half-truth.

Personal opinion about Dahn: I don't think he's bad intended but he actually projects on other people (it's irronic because that's what he accused me of doing) intentions and attitudes and he take actions against those imagined intentions (that's only an opinion I don't have proof and can't have about intention of people) In this case of Nicolschi I think he feels that Romanians want to get rid of responsibility of Communism and its evils, while my only intention was just to make the info accurate. Of course, no intellectually honest people would agree that the first variant "who was actually a Romanian from Bessarabia" about Nicolschi was accurate and complet info, however Dahn just did that in the talk page -- amazing what sophistry can make out of otherwise smart guy.... -- AdrianTM 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it's probably a good idea if you didn't attack him because you'd just give him reasons to bitch about it... -- AdrianTM 08:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:

I never edited that article. Artaxiad 08:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Icar, I will take a closer look - perhaps I misspoke. But remember, removing sourced material is considered vandalism. And it's always better to discuss changes first, especially if you're changing pages that are the result of a lengthy compromise. Biruitorul 13:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war is not good. See WP:Mediation--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want I can mediate this case.

Valter Roman

Hi, I've decided not to block you for breaching our Three revert rule policy today, instead preferring to protect the page whilst you and Dahn (along with all other interested users) come to an agreement over the content, preferably by using the articles talk page. If you persist in reverting more than 3 times in any 24 hour period following this warning, I will have no hesitation in blocking you in future. -- Nick ^t 14:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, you made a good choice. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn

I reported him here --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 15:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (Icar 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Lili Pancu

A tag has been placed on Lili Pancu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. J Milburn 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please concentrate on articles rather than the editors

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I have looked into the history of your contributions and could not help but notice that a significant percentage of them are reverts and abrasive messages on different talk pages. Sometimes it looks like a vendetta against User:Dahn. He created many Romania-related articles and deserves better treatment even if you consider that he is wrong in some articles. Please be polite and concentrate on adding sourced info rather than the shortcomings of editors. Lili Pancu is a good start. Happy editing Alex Bakharev 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Goma

Actually I am not that interesting in the article but in the productive work of editors there. One of the requirements for this is to keep it User:Bonaparte-free as this user has demonstrated a zillion creative ways of disrupting the project. Regarding [1] I failed to find any sources supporting Paul Goma been a honorary citizen of Timişoara or not. If you have such sources please provide them and re-insert the sentence Alex Bakharev 08:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation

Ştiai că _______ o-sa scoată partea despre violuri dacă nu bagi o citaţie - ai cumva una ca să punem înapoi partea aia? Biruitorul 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vasile Luca

Icar, in the lead, the standard practice of Wikipedia is to put the citizenship, not the ethnicity. Vasile Luca may not be ethnically Romanian, but he became known as a Romanian politician. bogdan 18:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm..

NO! It was liberation of a territory that according to the international treaties was part of the Soviet Union. Just the typical revenge atrocities committed by every army against enemies and traitors.Anonimu 16:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexandru Nicolschi

This is not a pseudonym so that guideline doesn't apply. This is a fake name that has become somehow official (I don't know how, if legally or not... I somehow don't see Nicolschi going with a petition to ask for his name to be changed, but that's a different issue) -- AdrianTM 15:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right, going to change that back. -- AdrianTM 15:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Useless remarks

Icar, your last comment on my talk page is non-factual and useless. I had already explained Francis why I believe his revert is not justified. Your comment brought no new information. Dpotop 09:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You will see in time that a moderate position is easier to support. Moreover, spurious interventions are not well-accepted on Wikipedia. Dpotop 09:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I notice that a great many of your edit summaries are "rvv." Looking through the actual edits, however, they appear to be mostly content disputes. Please note that "vandalism" is an attempt to damage the encyclopedia - pushing one's point of view is not vandalism, though it is disruptive. If you could use descriptive and accurate edit summaries, it would be appreciated. Additionally, consistantly reverting back and forth is also disruptive. The appropriate action is to discuss your problems on the talk page of the article and reach some sort of agreement between the warring parties. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Thanks! PouponOnToast 12:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, but it was impossible to discuss with User:Dahn, I personally understand Icar's position and don't try anymore to get to any compromise with Dahn because it's impossible, usually if I bring arguments I'm accused of sophistry and other "pleasant" things... -- AdrianTM 12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear you are trying. PouponOnToast 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say my work is sabotaged by this internet activist User:Dahn who disregards every argument I bring. Now he pushes a hard-core communist POV regarding nationality, by which one should introduce Soviet agents by their code names, and call them "Romanian" if Romania was unlucky enough to have them activate there. Icar 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to ignore your arguments. Please present your arguements on the talk pages of the articles in question to be ignored, as opposed to assuming they will be ignored. Do not call POV pushing vandalism - it makes discerning actual vandalism harder on those of us trying to prevent it. Thanks. PouponOnToast 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In any case, your edits consist mostly of reverts, and relatively few comments on the appropriate talk pages, which means that the development of articles is stuck, instead of going forward. That's not a very constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Zocky | picture popups 13:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of POVs, you're misunderstanding things here. "Vasile Luca, born Luka Laszlo" is the correct way to refer to the person on Wikipedia. Compare with "Marilyn Monroe, born Norma Jeane Mortenson" or "John Paul II, born Karol Józef Wojtyła". Even if a person's name wasn't changed through marriage, it's normal to refer to them by the name they're most commonly known under, regardless of how they got it. "See also Kurt Herbert Adler, American conductor born in Austria". Edit warring over such non-important matters just wastes time for everybody and diverts attention from more important matters, like facts. Zocky | picture popups 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As for Adler: he was born in Austria, but is known for things he did while living in US. That's why he's called an "American conductor". It's not really a good example, since the subject of your article was actually born in what was later Romania, and was a figure in Romanian politics. "Romanian" doesn't mean just "of Romanian ethnicity". It also means "from or in Romania". That's why we say "Romanian mountains" even if they're not ethnically Romanian.

And about names of people in articles: It doesn't matter whether they legally changed their name. The standard name to use, both for the name of the article and for referencing in articles is the most commonly used one. See WP:COMMONNAMES. The conventions for starting the intro are slightly different for different kinds of people and different situations (e.g. whether the common name is just a casual version of the legal name, as with Bill Gates, a legal change of name like Marilyn, or a pseudonym like Greta Garbo), but it's all entirely secondary and doesn't really that much. Zocky | picture popups 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert-warring

Icar, this is a final warning: please stop your longterm revert wars on the Romanian communist activists articles. You have consistently been reverted on these issues by at least four different users in good standing (Dahn, Francis Tyers, Bogdangiusca, Khoikhoi), which indicates you are editing against consensus. Yet, you have stubbornly upheld a sterile revert war over several months on multiple articles. You have also repeatedly been referring to other editors as "vandals". Please note that the 3RR does not give you a right to keep reverting just below 3R a day. If you continue this revert war, you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but my warning stands. In judging editors' behaviour in matters of "disruption" blocks, as an admin, I try to keep a difficult balance between staying neutral about the disputed content, and judging the constructiveness of an editor's dispute behaviour in terms of how their debating is grounded in Wikipedia policy and general rules of rationality. In the present case, I have looked through some of the pages and must say I find your interpretation of MoS:BIO utterly without merit, and your insistence on removing mentioning of Romanian nationality solely from persons you dislike for their political stance a very clear breach of NPOV. Also, I note that together with some of your friends you have in the past engaged in ganging-up behaviour against Dahn that amounts to collective harassment and intimidation. You also made yet another gratuitous personal attack against him just now ("insane") - this, on the background of your past interactions with him, would really be in itself grounds for blocking, even though I'm not a big friend of personal-attack blockings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Edit warring does not solve problems. Please stop doing this. Also, you must stop calling good faith edits and good faith editors vandalism. PouponOnToast 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Icar, Dahn has complained to me that you have again begun harassing him with personal attacks, especially with that old canard of him being a "Trotskyist" ([2]). He has a point there. You are obviously misquoting and misrepresenting him, and you are obviously doing it in order to denigrate his political ethics. In other words, you are lying about him. I am firmly convinced that nobody with a modicum of intelligence and normal reading comprehension in English could honestly believe that these statements by Dahn ([3], [4]) could justify the claim that Dahn is "a self-avowed trotzkist sympathiser." You are either maliciously distorting what he says, or you are being extremely obtuse. Either way, you are engaging in personal harassment. I also note you have consistently singled him out for the subtle obnoxiousness of highlighting every single mentioning of his name in your posts by linking to his userpage (like here: [5]), something you don't do with any other contributor. I've often noted this to be a favourite tactics of stalkers - the repeated highlighting effect is just as if in talking about a person you would accompany every mentioning of a name with some marked gesture or change of voice; a subtly enervating effect.

You apparently have a pretty long history of doing these kinds of things. This is a final and serious warning. Leave Dahn alone. You are hereby banned until further notice from making any personal comments about Dahn, his behaviour, his motivations, his qualifications, etc. I will hold you very strictly to the rule of "comment on content, not contributor". Any disparaging remark of yours about Dahn will be met with a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Revert war-only account. Blocked indefinitely. `'Míkka 03:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

---