Talk:Ferdinand I of Romania

message: As I hope it’s obvious now, these fragments are amply sourced, in fact more methodical sourced than any other portion of the article’s text and many other articles here on Wikipedia, but Biruitorul defends his removal of this carefully sourced text by considering it "soapboxing"; now, that mean regularly to use "something that provides an outlet for delivering opinions" (Merriam Webster). As sourced text from reliable multiple academic sources though, that hardly makes any sense here, except if the opinions of many historians or political analysts are to be discarded only for not being to Biruitorul’s taste, and of others like him, fact which let me wonder what actually means here "use of reliable sources"; by any definition (as free dictionary’s "engage in impromptu or nonofficial public speaking, often flamboyantly" – what can be "unofficial" or "flamboyant" in dozens of historians’ or political scientists’ views? - or as "urban dictionary’s "to wax philosophical to promote your own agenda" – citing academic sources can’t be "waxing philosophical" or "promoting own agenda, except if one preposterously agree with Biruitorul that here "own agenda" means just the western historians’ and political scientists’ critical points of view, which of course I know that from an obsidional nationalistic mindset can make a lot of "sense". :) 
Having already some experience on Romanian-language Wikipedia as to what can or can’t be admitted as contributions by the administrators there, and by some groups of ultra-nationalist and idolatrous users, I can easily see that any critique of their idolized historical figures, the more so as such critiques are from Western academic sources and not simply just hagiographic domestic sources, is anathema. The question now it is only to which extent these eastern-European immature and naïve expectations according to which encyclopaedia articles ought to be just shallow hosannas of historical figures and not also cold-eyed and lucid analyses, are to be in the English language version too allowable or the usual metric by which one judges the critical contributions originating in the academic research. I already wonder how can be safe to allow someone to delete such a quantity of abundantly sourced text without sanctions or restrictions, as long as even in the worse scenario – that is if my contribution, although being as much as possible the expression of academic authors, still is miraculously a biased addition that infringe the "neutral point of view" rule - what the very rules of Wikipedia favour "as a general rule" to "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."    
The very fact that any conscientious and responsible contributor finds himself forced, as myself now, to plead in favour for such an obvious carefully sourced work as mine it is, and see at the starting point in the resolution of an "editing war" – in my opinion there is none, as long as the text is removed using such frivolous reasons - his additions still vandalized (deleted), can possibly be a bad omen for the future credibility of the project. Now my opinion and methodical conduct on Wikipedia was constantly, when found biased opinions even not sourced at all, to ADD sourced text that correct or complement what was already there, never to remove (that has really a lot to do with a genuine respect for the work of others), but actually that bad example of people like Biruitorul is inspiring: delete any assertions you don’t like no matter how decently sourced they are, if reversed delete them once more, and now let the other "prove" the obvious, that is he followed the rules you simply and contemptuously fool. Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Remus Octavian Mocanu,
I notice that you have been working to add a sizable amount to this article.  It certainly seems well researched, and is an interesting insight on his approach to ruling.  I am a little puzzled, though, that so much of the content of your addition is in the footnotes, significantly more than in the text of the article.  Is there some way you can re-organize this and pull more of it up into the main article so that the reader does not have to go back and forth so much?  1bandsaw (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can and I will try to better the text as you suggest here as soon as possible, but unfortunately this section which I added recently (yesterday) is actually nothing new in the article, being an old contribution of mine that was deleted by someone not agreeing with the opinions of all those sources you noticed. So, the very section I have to improve now is potentially still threatened with new removals the first time a guy (and even the same user) feels he doesen`t like it. The very profusion of sourcing and quotations you noticed had the same reason to be there, that is to deter somehow those idolatrous Romanian nationalists that refuse any lucid and critical contribution on the subject in the Romanian version of the free encyclopedia, to delete it too in the English version! Otherwise, what I put in the text and arguably is confirmed repeatedly by many Western academic sources, doesen`t need to be so heavily supported in cumbersome footnotes... Fact is also that I ignore the extent to which remains healthy in an encyclopaedia, for a biographical article, to mention otherwise than shortly the political failures or contributions of the introduced figure. As a matter of fact Ferdinand inherited a political system and a host of political and cultural practices, his only failure being in maintaining it more than was useful and fair for the people and the country. Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote sizing? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ferdinand I of Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504152624/http://visit.peles.ro:80/king-ferdinand-i/ to http://visit.peles.ro/king-ferdinand-i/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318011423/http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/conti_eng.htm to http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/conti_eng.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221060414/http://royalromania.wordpress.com/image-gallery/crown-prince-ferdinand-of-romania-bprince-og-hohenzollern/ to http://royalromania.wordpress.com/image-gallery/crown-prince-ferdinand-of-romania-bprince-og-hohenzollern/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109045113/http://www.postershowcase.info/i6854884_King_Ferdinand_I_of_Romania.html to http://www.postershowcase.info/i6854884_King_Ferdinand_I_of_Romania.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't the title of this page be "Ferdinand, King of Romania"? He was the only king of Romania named Ferdinand. Like how Queen Victoria is known as "Victoria" as opposed to "Victoria I".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.44.0.57 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on commmon usage. For instance, King Carlos I of Portugal, who is the only Portuguese king named Carlos, but most contemporary sources and modern historiography almost always refer to the king with his ordinal. Depends completely on practice. I don't know about this case specifically, but there is no standard form, only common usage. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinal