Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:43, 27 April 2007

Romanian Wikipedians' notice board


Romania portal

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors - and editors interested in Romania-related articles - to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under its relevant category.

/Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9

Links

News and announcements

Applying the naming conventions to Transylvanian settlemens

I realised that the naming of Transylvanian settlements where Hungarians are in majority, doesn't follow the naming conventions. According to the conventions, "In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used" the current local name is Hungarian in these towns and villages and the language is locally official, because more than 20% of the inhabitants are Hungarians. I suggested on the Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board and, as a test, on the Odorheiu Secuiesc/Székelyudvarhely page that these articles are renamed according to the conventions, as it happened in the case of South Tyrol settlements. Looking forward to reading your comments on these pages. --KIDB 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a contentious issue to me, to say the least. To get the ball rolling, how about we start with an obvious Google search: 2,070,000 hits for "Odorheiu Secuiesc", 673,000 hits for "Székelyudvarhely". Hmmmm.... — Turgidson 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with Google. If you rely only on this, I will go and at once move the Csíkmadaras, Nyárádszentimre, Ditró, Nyárádszereda articles because there are more Google hits for them in Hungarian. --KIDB 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I don't just rely on Google — I just wanted to say something quick before everyone else jumped in (surely, with better arguments)! But even on this narrow issue of Google hits, I feel pretty confident that, with a careful analysis of data, one will find more hits for the Romanian name than for the name in any other language for almost any locality in Romania (a rather obvious statement, yes?) By the way, any serious analysis would have to account for variations in spelling (and maybe even declension). Eg, "Odorheiul Secuiesc" gets an additional 69,600 hits, "Odorheiului Secuiesc" 591 hits, etc. Turgidson 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Tyrol is an autonomous region, Szekelyfold is not. In South Tyrol, German is an official language with equal rights with Italian, in Transylvania, Romanian is the only official language (see the Romanian Constitution). While in the Hungarian towns and villages, Hungarian is used for some purposes in administration (in addition to Romanian), it is not an official language. bogdan 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in a sense but Wikipedia is not governed by national legislations. The naming convention applies and the present practice is not in line with the convention. If you do not agree with the convention, you should suggest a chenge to it. Have a nice week-end --KIDB 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't say anything about a practice, but about the current local name. The current local name is covered by the local legislation, even if you like it or not. Daizus 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had that discussion already in some pages; the current local name is the Romanian one, as it was pointed above. The 20% threshold simply allows multilingual signs, it doesn't provide an alternate official local name.

Moreover, routinely Transylvanian settlements are displayed in several languages also in other pages but their own article, because Hungarian (and seldom German) editors do not understand these settlements have only one official name. Their own article page should be the only place where more names are used, in all the other context it should be used the name according to NC: current name in current events, corresponding historical names (in the perspective of scholarship, not of primary sources, we won't have Castrum Clus for 13th century Cluj) in historical contexts. Daizus 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article suggestion

I suggest the creation of an article on Mihail Roller. From what I heard, the guy did a lot of stupid things, but somehow allowed Romanian historical science to survive. I was reminded of him by an article in today's Jurnalul National. Cheers. Dpotop 11:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming, eventually. Meanwhile, may I suggest we either make more use of the to-do list at the top of the page, or replace it with a new scheme that will get regular updates? Biruitorul 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot there exists one... :) I don't know if many editors read it. Dpotop 18:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I thank you for attracting my attention to the very interesting JN piece. I don't think many read that, and I was simply pointing out a wider problem. But Roller definitely is on my agenda, and this article will help. Biruitorul 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Leonard Orban...

was passed as a Good Article. --Michkalas 09:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

Hristos a înviat din morţi
Cu moartea pe moarte călcând
Şi celor din mormânturi
Viaţă dăruindu-le. Biruitorul 06:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adevarat a inviat. Dpotop 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent!

Assuming the new cabinet gets confirmed and the Alliance dissolves, we should plan on updating the article on the Alliance (easy) and setting up a more permanent model for the cabinet article and articles on previous cabinets (more challenging). My proposal for the latter is this: for now, let's transfer the content of the current article to "First Popescu-Tăriceanu Cabinet" and, if it's approved by Parliament, include the incoming cabinet at Romanian Cabinet. I've been proposing more permanent solutions for months, but they haven't drawn much interest. Maybe now that the government is, in fact, changing, they will. Biruitorul 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my belief was that it is best for the reader to have cabinet makeups attached to the articles on PMs, per how they did for French PMs. A lot of content forking was accomplished on pages relating to Romanian ministers/ministries (for example, I cannot see why Prime Minister of Romania should be a separate article from the list of PMs), and when I tried to do something about it, I got a rather rude and illogical response from another user, so I became a little jaded. Dahn 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible solution, and I guess I'm being unorthodox here. is to simply not create separate articles on cabinets, but to create a series of templates that we attach to all members of cabinets: "first Popescu-Tăriceanu cabinet" etc. Incidentally, the Rompres site gives us enough data to at least map these out down to Sănătescu, and I have a source on the National Legionary cabinets (plus, having looked through info I patched up when contributing text in various articles, I say we could eventually come up with complete lists of interwar cabinets, and even pre-WWI ones). I'm not saying we should do it now, since it is a lot of work, but we could start something. Dahn 10:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the French model could work (though like I've said, I find the Australian model more aesthetically pleasing). Given the size of the undertaking, I think maybe we should adopt the French model now and move toward the Australian one as information becomes available. A few days ago I actually was looking at a book that had every minister and every Romanian government from Barbu Catargiu through maybe Radu Vasile listed (it was quite thick). If I get a hold of it again I'll try to transcribe some information from it. Biruitorul 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awright, dude! Dahn 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Dahn and I have reached a tentative agreement on a way forward. The goal is to take this list and convert it into templates here, which will then be inserted in the appropriate articles. For now, put in full dates only if multiple cabinets held office in one year. Figuring out who belonged to what party is difficult, so maybe start with the older cabinets, when there were no real parties. If each of us does one a day, we'll be done quite soon. Biruitorul 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred a number of those into templates, see Template:Ciorbea Cabinet, Template:Stolojan Cabinet, Template:Isărescu Cabinet, Template:Vasile Cabinet, Template:First Tăriceanu Cabinet and Template:Second Tăriceanu Cabinet. Ronline ✉ 09:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"incident" or "massacre"?

A modest suggestion (stolen from Biruitorul) to re-open debate on Talk:Fântâna Albă incident--there is good reason to rename the article back to "Fântâna Albă massacre" (at least in my opinion), but serious discussion and consensus will be absolutely required before attempting anything so controversial. Come share your thoughts....K. Lásztocska 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (Hungarians can post here, right?) :) [reply]

Now that the title issue has been resolved (I hope), there is a storm brewing about sources. Romanian speakers are needed! [1] K. Lásztocska 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Border_history_of_Romania

You may be interested in this AfD on an article that needs some explaining, and maybe better maps. Dpotop 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Cluj-Napoca

Anyone knows what happened to the article History of Cluj-Napoca? I saw the announcement last night on here, made a bit of an edit to it, and added a category to go with it, Category:History of Cluj-Napoca. But today the article is gone, with no explanation! This is a pity, and also quite strange -- never saw something like this happen before. Turgidson 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copyright violation, copy-pasted from another website. Bonaparte has been doing this kind of thing for some time... bogdan 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation -- sorry, I had no idea. Unfortunately, this puts a damper on things: how does one know when to start editing an article? I invested some time in this (not much, but still), and I think there was one more editor who put some work into it. The subject matter was quite legitimate (I still think we need an article on the history of Cluj), and one cannot be expected to vet each and every article before starting editing it, can one? I'll be more careful in the future when to start working on an article -- I'm afraid this experience may have a chilling effect. Turgidson 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some possibility you can revive the deleted version and sandbox it for further improvements? It could still be stored somewhere (sysops can delete a text forever, presumably they can also revive it). On the other hand, the cause for deletion seems rather solid. Dahn 17:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have a copy, but it's not a big deal, I can reconstitute the text I added (it had to do with the People's Tribunal in Cluj, just after WWII), if and when the article is revived on a solid basis. At least, the Category:History of Cluj-Napoca survived, and I'll take that as the silver lining to the story. Turgidson 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a copyright violation. The text was that from the history paragraph in Cluj-Napoca article. The point was to create a main article about and to just summarize that part in Cluj-Napoca article. And in time to develop on a solid base the history of Cluj-Napoca article. It happened that I edited the Cluj-Napoca article, mainly on the economy and administration paragraph and someone deleted all my edits too without any explanation. And now I really have no wish to start over again. --Roamataa 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't quite know what the procedures are in cases such as these, but I'd suggest for the future at least, to give some consideration to good-faith editors who worked on an article that (for some reason or other) is slated for the chopping block. Eg, a notice on the talk page that the article is to be deleted, with a short explanation why, plus perhaps a backup copy of changes made by said editor, would go a long way towards making such an experience less stressful. And, by the way, why then delete the article on the History of Cluj-Napoca (which had at least potential to be improved, plus already had some extra work put into it), but keep Population of Cluj-Napoca (added by the same person at more-or-less the same time), which article does not seem to have much of a redeeming value? Turgidson 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have not mentioned the Population of Cluj-Napoca - now it's deleted too. For History of Cluj-Napoca I started a deletion review here. --Roamataa 19:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok now. I have the article back on User:Roamataa/History of Cluj-Napoca. --Roamataa 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's back again - History of Cluj-Napoca. Please feel free to edit it. --Roamataa 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks to everyone who contributed in solving this situation. Good to see that good will and cool heads work out in the end. Turgidson 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the naming convention

Hello. I am sorry to spam this forum, I am trying to reach the most prolific editors of the articles related to Central Europe. As you have probably already realized, there is a naming convention regulating the use of geographic names in English Wikipedia. If you have not yet had chance to read it, you can find it at WP:NCGN. We all have already done a very good job in applying some parts of the convention, such as inclusion of all the relevant names either in the lead or in a separate “Names” section of the main article. However, the use of geographic names in the historical context is still very inconsistent and sometimes flagrantly violating the convention. That is why I would like to encourage everyone to familiarize with and to apply WP:NCGN. Here is the relevant part of the convention:

“The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context.”

Let us take an example: There is an article about a town called Kremnica. Unless we are able to prove that a different name is widely accepted in the English-speaking world (this is the case of Constantinople and Istanbul, for instance), all articles in Wikipedia should use the word “Kremnica” while referring to that town.

WP:NCGN also lists evidence required to identify a “widely accepted English name”: especially consensus among main English-language encyclopedias published after 1993, Google Scholar and Google Books hits when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question, and consensus among other standard histories and scientific studies (such as Cambridge Histories) written in English.

As to the rules of discussion, WP:NCGN states:

“If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurrences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s). If the dispute is affecting more than one article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the main article about the place in question”

I would like to start applying the aforementioned parts of the convention in the articles on my watchlist. I advertise the convention here to insure that my edits will not trigger revert wars caused by misunderstanding or ignorance of the convention. One of the aims of WP:NCGN is to reduce nationalist edit warring and I am confident we can achieve this goal if we all follow the actual convention.

Tankred 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easter contributions

For those interested in religion and/or tradition, Easter may be a period for improving the quality of articles related to the Romanian Orthodox Church. Starting from a small source I found (and wanted to add) this morning I discovered that the articles describing the various metropolies of the Romanian Orthodox Church either don't exist, or are a mess. On ro.wiki, the articles exist, contain a lot of raw material, but are badly written.

Let's start by translating and correcting the articles related to the 6 metropolitanates and 10 archbishoprics, and maybe correct what's on ro.wiki. This morning, I created Metropolis of Bessarabia. Note that writing the text migt be difficult: There are historical intricacies. It took me some time to decide how to write those few lines. Dpotop 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dpotop, I think the proper title of such an article is "Metropolitan bishopric of...". It is certainly not "Metropolis". Dahn 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False. See here: [2] [3].

The use is explained here: Metropolis#Etymology_and_modern_usage.

BTW, even the Romanian Orthodox Metropolis of Western Europe uses the term. See here: [4] .Dpotop 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as you will see from the links you provided, the term was used in Latin for such a diocese. All the links you provided for "Metropolis" have one particularity - they are all for the Greek Orthodox Church. Searches for other branches of Orthodoxy give surprisingly scarce results (including for Romanian sites). The common terms are metropolitan see or metropolitan bishopric or, as you will see from the article on Metropolitan bishop and, say, here, metropolia. In every instance, wikipedia articles of this sort tend to be about the office, not about the institution, so an even better title would be "Metropolitan of...". Dahn 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how does one wikify an article? I once read that it's not good to do it by hand. But how do I enter the new associations in a bot? Dpotop 09:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of a bot to wikify an article, and I think it is logically impossible for one to even exist. In fact, the MoS clearly asks contributors to wikify articles. Dahn 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "logically impossible" means you don't have imagination and/or computers knowledge. One simple way to do wikifying with a bot is to post wikify requests in some list and some bot doing the job. Frankly, I have no idea. But you are uncivil and patronizing. Dpotop 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As concerns bots, I presume they are at least in charge of maintaining wikify links, because I was once asked (by an admin) not to delete them by hand. Dpotop 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be constructive, explain how the thing is done, don't patronize me. Dpotop 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is done when you do it. Just like using diacritics and adding categories, which I still don't see you using in articles. A bot doing such things would be, I repeat, impossible (or, if possible, prone to continuous errors and a waste of resources). As for explaining, I'm pretty sure that I have explained these things to you several times by now, and I'm pretty sure that, having spend as much time as you did on this project, you could have at least read the Manual of Style. Dahn 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis of Bessarabia and ro:Mitropolia Basarabiei

I'm advancing on these articles (mostly on the ro.wiki version, which has more information), but I'm having a technical problem:

I would like to ask for the deletion of Orthodox Church of Bessarabia and its ro.wiki equivalent, but I don't know how to do it. The idea is that no reference to such an organization exists outside Wikipedia (you can check using Google). The organization the articles refer to is the Metropolis of Bessarabia, for which an article already exists. Thus, the content of the former articles should be dumped in the second, according to the language.

I need help. Dpotop 13:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought. In case you are right about the move, why not just redirect the Orthodox Church of Bessarabia article (rather large) to the Metropolis of Bessarabia (puny stub), add the info that is not found in the latter to the former, and change nomenclature accordingly? On second thought: redirect both to Metropolitan of Bessarabia or Metropolia of Bessarabia or something. Because it seems to me that you spend a lot of time and energy on content forking. Dahn 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. The actual link was done by an anon editor, and the result is OK for me. Thanks for the suggestion, anyway. Dpotop 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific on your "Content forking" remark? I don't see myself doing it. Dpotop 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there were two articles with the same purpose and topic, the newer one was by definition a fork. I remember we discussed this over at least one similar move you made in the past - but I'm not saying that to rub salt on wounds, just to ask you not to do it in the future. Dahn 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I simply started editing on a non-existent article title, and realized its content existed under a wrong name. Am I supposed to know the content of all en.wiki to figure out that what I want is a move from a totally different name? Dpotop 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are actually supposed to do is, per what wikipedia specifically recommends, look before you leap. You are not to required to know "the content of all en.wiki" (and I cannot see how you came to that conclusion in the first place), you are however required to look around in articles where the one you want to add is likely to be mentioned, or to take into consideration alternative names and run a search on wiki, before you start a fork that will potentially waste everyone's time. Dahn 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I just said before is that I did look around. Dpotop 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I simply started editing on a non-existent article title, and realized its content existed under a wrong name." To me, this doesn't look at all like you looked around. Dahn 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: The article "Autonomous Orthodox Church of Bessarabia" does exists also on the french, finn, and some other wikipedias. So, the person(s) who put in the wrong info made a thorough job, which may mislead other editors. Dpotop 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more contests for now, but...

Now that I’ve piloted a couple of ways to write articles, I think I’ve found a better solution. Why don’t we pick an article from ro.wiki, translate it (using the division into sections we used for Tâmpa), and when it’s done, pick a new one, and so on? The only question is who does the picking. If no one else is interested, I’ll do it. Otherwise, we can rotate among volunteers. Anyway, does the general idea appeal to you? There aren’t a ton of high-quality articles on ro.wiki, but there are some, and it's steadily improving.

Since I assume my proposal won't be hugely controversial, let's jump right in. My pick is ro:Julius Popper. He already has a short en.wiki biography, so let's work at Julius Popper/Translation, and move that to the "Julius Popper" spot once it's done, presumably erasing the English text.

1. Images.
2. Introduction and early years.
3. Travels.
4. In Tierra del Fuego.
5. Expedition, up to "creşterea ovinelor".
6. Expedition, up to "focuri de armă".
7. Expedition, rest.
8. Money, up to "AU.864-AG 132".
9. Money, rest.
10. Postage stamps.
11. End of the expedition, up to "revocarea sa din funcţie".
12. End of the expedition, rest.
13. Traces.
14. Death, footnotes, links, categories.

Biruitorul 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian general election, 1946

Hi. Just to let you know that I've nominated Romanian general election, 1946 for featured article status, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romanian general election, 1946. The article is excellent: well-referenced, detailed and well-structured. Ronline ✉ 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian ministers

I'm not sure about this source's reliability, but can be used at least as a guide:[5] Daizus 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which (but referring to an earlier time frame), in the article on C. A. Rosetti, it is mentioned that he served as temporary PM from July 15 to July 16, 1866. C. A. Rosetti is then listed in the Category:Prime Ministers of Romania, but not on the corresponding infobox. How to handle this, consistently? Turgidson 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

Hi guys, I have a big complaint about our fellow editor User:Dahn.

He reverts all my changes by labeling them "vandalism".
He calls friends of his to revert articles where he is alone agains all the other editors like here.
He insists on calling Soviet agents (even NKVD generals who did not speak any Romanian) "Romanian activists". When the agents had double citizenship, he goes to edit wars to have "Romanian" written first. He would rather hide the true non-Romanian name of these people and their role in the Soviet occupation. He is also keen on whitewashing Radio Moskow's newswriters, by justifying somehow their fight (basically supporting their propaganda). He says "let the people have the name they chose for themselves" which is terribly ironic for foreign agents who were paid as coordinators of the occupation forces and who changed their name (at least for the Romanian public) as part of their job description. (Icar 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please give your input. Thanks. (Icar 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I reported him [6]. Please give your input. Thanks. --HIZKIAH (User  Talk) 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meanwhile, User:HIZKIAH was banned by User:Khoikhoi, an admin known to side with User:Dahn. The reason they gave was that HIZKIAH was a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, but I cannot find any place where this is documented. Anyways, the complaint filed by User:HIZKIAH is no longer active [7] but I filed a new one [8] where I invite you for input. Icar 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contest announcement, Round 2!

Greetings, fellow Romanians! I am pleased to announce round 1 of what will hopefully prove an enduring Hungarian-Romanian positive rivalry on Wikipedia. The rules of the contest are as follows:

1. Participants are to translate ro:Tâmpa into English (at Tâmpa, Braşov). You may add supplementary material.

2. Starting Saturday, March 17 at 08:00, Wikipedia time, you may nominate the resulting article for DYK. The team whose article gets DYKed first is the winner.

3. If the Romanians lose, all Romanians who significantly contributed to the article must write, for one week, atop their user pages: "This user supports the cession of Transylvania to Hungary". If the Hungarians lose, all Hungarians who significantly contributed to the article must write, for one week, atop their user pages: "Long live the Treaty of Trianon!" (In the event of a tie, both teams win.)

To simplify the process, let me divide the article into a few rough sections so people can sign up to do it:
√1. Images and image captions. Turgidson 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
√2. Introduction and species.
√3. Etymology. Biruitorul 01:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. History, to XVth century.
5. History, to 1849.
√6. History, to 1892.Dahn 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
√7. History, rest. Just the tunnel stories from there. Turgidson 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
√8. Stories. Turgidson 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Bibliography, links, categories, template.

Go to it! Biruitorul 01:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume I'm out of this contest, because I would never, ever, write this on top of my page. Dpotop 07:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but first, maybe we can win, and second - even though I disagree equally strongly with that statement - it's a joke, OK? No one will know you did it one week later. It won't take away from your status as a Romanian patriot. Biruitorul 12:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my point is that this subject (Transylvania belonging to Romania) is not negociable, and therefore it cannot be decided by a game. Moreover, making jokes may not be the best solution, yet, given the current political situation, which is still tensed (the tensions are not yet restricted to extremist minorities). Dpotop 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this position is only mine. (BTW: An acceptable prize would have been the choice of an article, and the exclusive editing rights for one week or so.) Dpotop 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're free to start your own contest. Also, as far as I know, neither of us is employed by the Romanian government, so we have zero power to "negotiate" anything. It's just a way to get an article written. Maybe a rather stupid way, but that's not the issue; the issue is getting the article written. Biruitorul 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Coicoi" an insult ?

Recently User:Dpotop has been blocked for transliterating Khoikhoi into Coicoi in a post. The reason given for the block was: “coicoi (Romanian for testicles)”. It was User:Dahn who complained about that. Since this is a specific issue of Romanian language, I am asking my fellow native Romanians if they feel that transliterating Khoikhoi into Coicoi can be considered as an insult ? (For obvious reasons I am asking both parts involved User:Dpotop and User:Dahn to kindly abstain from input.) Thank you. --Vintilă Barbu 08:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have been offended, even if it was meant as an insult--which I don't think it was. There's nothing more we can do about this, except debate and cry. You guys need to understand that Wiki is ran by an Anglo-Saxon elite with an American and British culture. The Brits are now a very sensitive people—at least the politically correct elite, which are the one's running things around; while Americans...well, need I say more? I would suggest the contributors to stop cooperating with Dahn, if they think that would solve their problems; but of course it won't, because Dahn may try to involve himself in anything that he may find suitable. Also, most of the Ro admins—the same admins that we supported and trusted, either take his side or at best stay neutral. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masquerading this as "a transliteration" is phantasmagoric. I personally complained about nothing, I just pointed it out at a time when Dpotop was lecturing me on what is and what is not against wiki etiquette. I'm sorry if this indeed makes you "debate and cry", and I'm sorry this discussion is spuriously dragged into "what the Brits are like/what Americans are like/what Romanians are like" territory. FYI, Anittas and Vintila Barbu, I have a right to get involved in anything I want over here, and I have a right not to be insulted with calls for isolation for not playing ball with the guys. The theory about how you're "disappointed" in Ro admins who will not take your side is in itself relevant, and it would be funny were its effects not so disruptive.

You have already had the verdict of two admins, both of whom consider the extended debate about Khoikhoi "badgering". I myself am getting tired of seeing posts aimed at specific users posted on this page and its talk: even if you have to theorize about what should be done to me or another contributor, I'm pretty sure you can do it on your own talk pages. Dahn 09:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you have the right to do what you do, we have the right (I believe) to discuss these issues in a place where all are gathered. And we are of the opinion that it is you who are being disruptive. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is about what those who enforce regulations may find disruptive, not about what you or I do. Dahn 10:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to hear that you have been "insulted with calls for isolation". I don’t think that there is any need for such calls. --Vintilă Barbu 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why spew them? Dahn 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for Dpotop and the others who support his cause, I'll have to agree with Dahn on this one. „Transliterating” Khoikhoi's name in that particular way was obviously intended to be at least funny, if not insulting. One can always try and find lawyerly excuses for Dpotop, but it won't fly. Whether his prank justifies a 48-hour block is debatable; I'd say the admin went too far. — AdiJapan ☎ 11:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's well known how the Khoikhoi's nickname has been the source of jokes (e.g. all the anon edits here and here, especially this and this). Nevertheless, it was inappropriate to block without a prior warning and I can't help suspecting that this was the result of a behind the scenes arrangement.--Domitius 12:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your evaluation about how that block could materialise – through emailing. Following some of your edits on Romanian topics I might have misjudged you, but I am glad to see that you are independent in your judgement. Very happy about that, --Vintilă Barbu 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree undoubtedly that "Coicoi" is an insult. There would be no rational justification for writing the name like that, other than to insult the user. Since Romanian is written in the Latin alphabet, there is never a need for "transliteration" and Romanians generally tend to not "localise" names anyway. Childish jabs at people's names should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. And, not only is it a personal attack, but it is extremely disrespectful to these people. As to the block - the block should be lifted immediately because no explanation was given on the talk page, and no warning. Yes, it's a technicality, but if you're going to enforce policy by giving maximum bans for an offence, then at least follow policy yourself. Zero tolerance gives way to zero tolerance. Lift the block and let's get on with our business.

Ronline ✉ 13:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tismaneanu and his role on Wikipedia

Some users have noticed that Vladimir Tismăneanu is ubiquitous on WP when it comes to the history of Romanian communism. Unfortunately, the man is not even trained as a historian. He worked in political sciences for over 35 years, which is very respectable per se, only that some 15 of them were in the service of the communist regime in Romania. I can attribute his presence as a source on WP only to his own anonymous contributions, otherwise nobody would take his writings seriously. It seems that his Master thesis, later expanded in a PhD, was higly inflamatory (calling for a violent communist revolution, which is a core trotzkist belief). These original contributions to communist doctrine were published in 1980, at the height of Ceausescu's communist dictatorship. I am calling for more cautious using of Tismaneanu as a source. Icar 12:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most citations of Tismaneanu are due to User:Dahn, a self-avowed trotzkist sympathiser. Icar 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to bother answering to this malicious and illogical rant? Also, not that it is any of this person's business, and not that it means anything to the issue of using a reliable award-winning source, but my actual point about Trotskyism is provided on the same page. Tolle, lege. Dahn 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: User:Dahn states that Trotzkists were "not entirely moronic". He "can respect Trotskyism on some level, I can even sympathize with some form of Luxemburgism". Also he deems that "it takes intelligence to be a Trotskyist". Now the problem is that the source he is pushing (Tismaneanu, the so-called "reliable award-winning source") for history articles is not a historian, but a Trozkist who defected to the West and became a political scientist. Is this "award-winning source" really reliable? Is User:Dahn really able to give a dispassionate account of the articles he modifies? I offer just a few examples where we have a problem: Can we call "Romanian" the following fellas:

Alexandru Nicolschi, NKVD general, born Boris Grünberg in Russia, of Jewish parents, who spoke broken Romanian all his life. One of the most ferocious agents of the Soviet occupation, leader of "Brigada Mobila", the embrio of the Securitate.
Gheorghe Pintilie, in reality Timofei (or Panteleimon) Bodnarenko, ethnic Ukrainean born in Russia, spoke only basic Romanian, NKVD general, first leader of the Securitate, who beat Foriş (the former PCR leader) to death with a crowbar.
Vasile Luca, in reality Hungarian-born László Luka, who declared himself to be Jewish, activated in different national branches of the communist party, member of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, responsible for the Fantana Alba massacre.

Are these people really "Romanian communists"? This is how User:Dahn insists on calling them. ALL other editors involved asked him to stop this game, but instead he simply calls his friends (one admin User:Khoikhoi and others) who revert with no comment. Dialogue is lost on him (maybe that's what Trotzkist logic is about).

Paul Goma. here User:Dahn refuses to accept what ALL other editors tell him: that the references already included in the article say exactly what he tries desperately to hide by reverting. His version is a patent lie in light of the sources. Icar 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I better not touch this discussion even with a ten foot pole, although I was involved in some way or another in the editing of all 3 articles you mention. But I cannot resist saying this: although I completely disagree with Trotskyism, both in theory and in practice, I must agree with Dahn that there have been some very intelligent Trotskyites over time, though perhaps my opinion is colored by the fact that the ones I've actually read are all ex-Trotskyists. The names that come first to mind are James Burnham, Irving Kristol, and Christopher Hitchens. Take a look, and you'll see we're talking a different class altogether than Pantiuşa hitting Foriş over the head with a rangă! — Turgidson 15:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: the notion that VT is "a Trotskyist" and all speculations about his credentials is purely inflammatory and disruptive. Dahn 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem articles

This is an incomplete list of articles where conflicts involving Romanian interests have occured, or which have involved Romanian Wikipedians (add any others):

Siculicidium "In 1774, the Habsburg soldiers took control of Bukovina (from the Ottoman authorities)"
Alexandru Nicolschi, Gheorghe Pintilie, Vasile Luca: are they really "Romanian communists"?
Paul Goma
Monica Macovei
Magyarization and Romanianization - you GOT to READ these !
Moldovan language
Moldovans
~~Demographics of Ukraine~~ Rezolvat/Resolved
Moldova
Movement for unification of Romania and the Republic of Moldova
Anti-Romanian discrimination
~~Hertza region~~ Rezolvat/Resolved
Transnistria Problems continue (I've requested the article to be blocked until the major issues are resolved. --Lysy ^(talk))
Bukovina
Romanians
Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878 vs Romanian War of Independence
Transylvania, User Erdelyiek is inserting some text suspected of original research ((s)he has been contributing to the article before).
~~Putna~~ needs transaltion/cleanup after anon. `'mikka (t) 21:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Rezolvat/Resolved — material was about Putna monastery, I've moved it to the talk page of that article. - FrancisTyers · 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Miklós Horthy

Resources

http://www.biblioteca.ase.ro/ResurseElectronice/carte/download.aspx?id=38

List of participants

Anittas 17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC) - indef blocked[reply]
Alexrap 18:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dunemaire 18:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC) - Inactive 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn 19:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Orioane 19:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tfine80 20:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voievod 15:29 (Eastern), 4 December 2005
Dpotop 21:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vlad 22:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ronline ✉ 00:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AdiJapan 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PET 05:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HotelRoom 06:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dalf | Talk 09:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mihai Andrei 13:27, 5 December 2005 (CET)
Vasile
Algos 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uncke Herb 06:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AdamSmithee 22:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
EvilAlex 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tavilis 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
vkxmai 01:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anclation 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
bogdan 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NorbertArthur 8:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
mmtux 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anonimu 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arcadie 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TSO1D 15:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a tag 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Romihaitza 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Angel 02:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
R.S.ro 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MIsterMan 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radufan 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mentatus 18:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criztu 18:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MariusM 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khoi khoi 00:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dapiks 00:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dc76 19:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roamataa 21:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michkalas 10:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turgidson 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :This sounds like a contentious issue to me, to say the least.  To get the ball rolling, how about we start with an obvious Google search:  2,070,000 hits for "Odorheiu Secuiesc", 673,000 hits for "Székelyudvarhely".  Hmmmm.... — [[User:Turgidson|Turgidson]] 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 ::Be careful with Google. If you rely only on this, I will go and at once move the Csíkmadaras, Nyárádszentimre, Ditró, Nyárádszereda articles because there are more Google hits for them in Hungarian. --[[User:KIDB|KIDB]] 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
+:Of course I don't just rely on Google — I just wanted to say something quick before everyone else jumped in (surely, with better arguments)!  But even on this narrow issue of Google hits, I feel pretty confident that, with a careful analysis of data, one will find more hits for the Romanian name  than for the name in any other language for almost any locality in Romania (a rather obvious statement, yes?)  By the way, any serious analysis would have to account for variations in spelling (and maybe even declension).  Eg, "Odorheiul Secuiesc" gets an additional 69,600 hits, "Odorheiului Secuiesc" 591 hits, etc.  [[User:Turgidson|Turgidson]] 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 : South Tyrol is an autonomous region, Szekelyfold is not. In South Tyrol, German is an official language with equal rights with Italian, in Transylvania, Romanian is the '''only''' official language (see the Romanian Constitution). While in the Hungarian towns and villages, Hungarian is used for some purposes in administration (in addition to Romanian), it is not an official language. [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 ::You are right in a sense but Wikipedia is not governed by national legislations. The naming convention applies and the present practice is not in line with the convention. If you do not agree with the convention, you should suggest a chenge to it. Have a nice week-end --[[User:KIDB|KIDB]] 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)