User talk:Dahn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:01, 18 January 2008

At last!

Oh joy! Oh rapture! Here it is! I welcome improvements. So far I've only put it in the Islam article, as a test, but assuming it looks OK, I'll roll it out to the others as well. Biruitorul 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Călinescu news is very intriguing, and I'm ready to wait for whatever you may bring forth. But I agree: it's much nicer to start work with all the sources than to discover new and important ones after you finish an article (that happened to me with the Jiu miners' strike, when JN decided to publish a big series on it just days after I'd written my article, but I have yet to incorporate or even review the new material). The subject of Hinduism in Romania is both of interest to me and largely mysterious as well. However, I should note that the thought of writing an article on the transcendental meditation affair has occurred to me in the past; we can certainly start with a sub-section and go from there, as there are several articles about that online.

I note we still lack a "Romanian atheists" category. Once that is created, I wonder who should go in there, particularly from among the Communists. Today's Chinese Communist Party requires all 70 million members to be atheists, but on the other hand, lower-level members of the Lithuanian nomenklatura were known to celebrate Catholic holidays in their homes in the 1970s and '80s. If these are two extremes, where did the PCR fit? I assume all party activists were atheists, but what about party members? My suspicion is not all of them abandoned religious profession (particularly the many who joined out of convenience), but it's something worth looking into, and deciding whom to include. (Wurmbrand reports Pătrăşcanu had a conversion shortly before his execution, but he too can probably be safely included.) For non-Communists, let's be careful about deciding who was and who was not one: for instance the featured article on Chekhov (who made several atheist-like statements) places him in the category "Russian Orthodox Christians", but not in "Russian atheists" as well. Biruitorul 07:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pionier sockpuppet catch

Good catch, thank you! -- Avi 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rozvan

Who are the "all other" sources who claim Rozvan was Hungarian? The fact that he wrote in Hungarian is not a proof of Hungarian origin; his family had ties with a Hungarian poet - don't remember exactly who but was written in the book I saw, he was born in a town with a Hungarian lingvistic enviroment at that time, this can explain his usage of hungarian language. I admit I didn't read very much on this subject. Considering all the details given in Rozvan's biography (he was one of the few communist leaders having a book about him printed in Ceauşescu's period) I would believe that indeed he was not of Hungarian origin. I will try to come later with exact refferences.--MariusM 22:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M-am uitat la articolul Salonta şi mi-am amintit poetul ungur cu care familia Rozvan a fost în relaţii strînse: Janos Arany.--MariusM 15:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Romania

For example how do I get to upload this picture w/o having to bug the one who produced it?

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oltenia

De ce insisti sa adaugi afirmatia aceasta? E clar ca limitele judetelor actuale nu respecta limitele regiunilor istorice (exceptie face doar cazul Dobrogei). Daca in articol este specificat faptul ca limita rasariteana a acestei regiuni istorice este raul Olt, de ce trebuie sa specificam pana unde se intind judetele Olt si Valcea? Si cum ramane cu judetul Mehedinti? Si cum ramane cu celelalte regiuni istorice? In capitolul "Geography" sunt specificate deja limitele acestei regiuni. Astept raspuns. --Olahus 11:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In legatura cu articolul Oltenia accept propunerea ta doar daca sunt aduse surse in acest sens. Surse care sa demonstreze faptul ca aceasta regiune istorica se intinde si la est de raul Olt. Desigur, termenul "Oltenia" are mai multe intelesuri, iar in aceasta pagina de dezambiguizare am tinut sa le enumar pe toate aceastea. In cazul regiunii istorice, lucrurile sunt limpede: regiunea se intinde pana la Olt, iar cine nu este de acord cu afirmatia aceasta, este invitat sa aduca surse. Altfel riscam sa imbicsim articolul cu interpretari personale (si nu de putine ori ridicole) a fiecarui utilizator.

In legatura cu Ardealul, doar nationalistii unguri si romani il vad in forma pe care tu insisti sa o pastrezi. Pentru nationalistii unguri, incepand cu 1920, "Erdely" inseamna teritoriul cedat la Trianon Romaniei, pentru nationalistii romani "Ardeal" inseamna una din cele 3 provincii istorice pomenite in sloganurile maghioarofobe strigate in 1990 la Tg. Mures ("Moldova, Ardealul si Tara Romaneasca") - de parca Romania s-ar constitui doar din 3 provincii istorice!!!. Nostim este si faptul ca in articolul despre Ardeal, afirmatia "The historical regions of Crişana and Maramureş (see also Partium), and the Romanian section of the Banat, marked in dark yellow, are also considered part of Transylvania today" este precedata prompt de un "citation needed" - este deci o afirmatie lipsita de surse!!! --Olahus 14:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teoctist

Salut. Sunt in articolul despre patriarhul teoctist niste acuzati nefondate cum ca ar fi fost homosexual si legionar, pe care eu le-am sters, si tu le-ai pus la loc. Ceeace se spune la sectiune de controverse sunt neadevarate si jicnitoare. Raportul la care face referire este era facatura a comunistilor ca sa denigreze personalitatea patriarhului si ca sa fie folosit ca santaj, asa cum faceau adesea comunistii, in special cu detinutii politici. NU ca si cum erau niste adevaruri. Este neadevarat si dureros ce scrie la acea sectiune. Patriarhul nu a fost homosexual, nici legionar iar treaba cu sinagoga e aiurea. Nici comunitatea evreiasca nu accepta aceasta dezinformare. De parca el nu avea altceva de facut decat sa devasteze sinagogi. Ar trebui sa se vada dincolo de aparente, pentru a intelege personalitatea celui care a fost Patriarhul nostru. Arthasfleo 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 5 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dumitru Ţepeneag, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 23:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caragiale

Do you know if any of Caragiale's works have been translated into English? He sounds like a writer I'd enjoy tremendously... K. Lásztocska 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All over the map

First, I agree that we need to proceed cautiously with the atheism category, but I'd say that as long as a couple of definite inclusions exist (Take Ionescu, the Paukers), let's go ahead one of these days. One also wonders about a "Romanian agnostics" category, though that's even murkier in some respects. Second, see this - by the way, adding 31 ancestors doesn't change the fact that the French have an FA on him, or that the article skips over, for instance, the first three decades of his life. So it seems the bacillus is spreading. In general, only a certain type of user edits royalty-related articles, and I'm not one of them, but some sort of a mediation case to cover this topic might be in order. Still, I don't have the time or energy for that right now. Third, while doing investigations for my very intriguing foray to the CAR, I came across reference to the interesting (interesting) CAR-Romania relationship of the 1960s, which made me lament not only the wretched state of the Ceauşescu article, but also the fact that it just touches on what I think is one of his more interesting personae, that is, Ceauşescu the statesman, the world leader, the mediator, the international mover and shaker. Anyway, definitely a place we can look to expand. Biruitorul 05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic

Dear Dahn

I don't know if you can help me :)) In the example given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Romanian-kirilitza-tatal-nostru.jpg the oblique case "-ilor" is written with a "ѡ" (дато́рничилѡрь). Is the use of "ѡ" here normal for late Romanian Cyrillic, or just an exception? I know that in early texts "-ilor" is written "-илор(ь)". Regards http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.240.145 10:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dahn, did you see my question? Regards http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.240.145 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O yes, that would be lovely!!! I'm sure you will be able to find it out by by checking with the Bible of 1820. With that information I'll be able to continue with Romian lemmas like http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/munte. Thanx in advance!!! Mulţumesc!!! http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.240.145 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I could find a Rumanian grammar book dating 1836: http://books.google.com/books?id=ffMIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=walachisch&as_brr=1&hl=de. They use "ѡ" there :))

Regards http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.240.145 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Cârja

Dear Dahn

I changed back some of the changes you made in the article on Ion Cârja. It was the Romanian authorities who did not allow him to return to the US, not the US authorities. He did not work for the federal Department of Health, but for the New York City Department of Social Welfare (it might have a different name now).

The same goes for the change you made about his book in the Canalul Dunarea-Marea Neagra article. He wrote the book between 1973-1974, but it was first published in Romania in 1996 (he published it in the US before he died). Mycomp 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eremia Grigorescu

Hello Dahn, I just created the Eremia Grigorescu article, so you might want to have a look on it! Any ideas and contribs are welcome! Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 14:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Anittas

No, the uprising started because Cuza's reforms failed, and most peasants had to make a living by working for the landowners. The leaseholders, Jewish or non-Jewish, were forced to occupy a niche in a system that denied them virtually everything, including citizenship, and that refused to accept economic change. In doing so, leaseholders allowed Romania's agrarian economy not o crash - they made estates lucrative by not being able to ask for much in return for their services (because they had nowhere else to go). The National Liberals, especially in Moldavia, did all in their power to maintain the discrimination, and their only "solution" to the problem was to prevent Jews from residing in rural areas. Among the Conservatives and the far left, antisemitism was not uncommon, but the only politicians who resented discrimination and wished to move on came from among the Conservatives and the socialists. Inside the Liberal camp, aside from the Moldavian pressure groups and the politicians who feared that losing their vote meant sinking into obscurity, the silent majority had nothing explicit to say on the matter. The difference was however sharp: consider that, in 1848, the Wallachian liberal groups had emancipated the Jews, whereas the main Moldavian liberal figures (Kogălniceanu, Hasdeu, Ionescu, Sturdza, Alecsandri etc) were notoriously anti-Jewish. There were several processes to keep in mind: on one hand, the early 1900s conflict between the younger and older Liberals (led, respectively, by Brătianu Jr. and Sturdza), which saw the former rally the dissident socialists and embark on something new - as a collateral, this eventually brought Jewish integration not only in Romania, but also inside the National Liberal Party; on the other, that the 1907 repression was engineered by the united front of National Liberals, who recalled a Conservative "boyar" cabinet.

In respect to the revolt, I can only repeat: its antisemitic nature has been fully documented, and, yes, attributed to the peasant's failure to identify their real problems (not surprisingly so). Orthodox prejudice played a part, as well as the fact that the one prominent party who would once in a while put on the act of favoring land reform (i.e.: the National Liberals) also claimed that Jews and foreigners were responsible for anything and everything.

Concerning the term "boyar": it is not usable for anything after Cuza's reforms, even though it surfaced in polemics (to which the wiki article you cite may be tributary, and this will have to be amended).

Feel free not to buy any of this, Anittas, but don't expect any of you arguments to be taken for serious when you refuse to acknowledge the most basic of facts. And, again, I "bring up" antisemitism not because it is my hobby, but because it was one of the main characteristic of Romanian political life and happens to be relevant to what you felt like bringing up. Dahn 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you when you say that the gov. is (partially) responsible for the uprise, but I refuse to believe that the peasants decided to uprise because there were Jews involved. Even if some of them were antisemitic, their main concern was their living; and it seems that the uprising started because a Jew refused to sign a contract with the peasants. That Jew could have been a Greek, a French, or a or a Hittite. The fact is that the peasants rebelled not because they didn't want to work for a Jew, but because they felt their living was under threat; and they were already working under hard conditions. The peasants wanted the Jew to sign the contract, not to dissapear from the face of the world. This uprising is somehow similar to the mining uprising throughout history: in UK, France, etc. Perhaps that antisemitic propaganda helped things develop more quickly and more serious, but that was not the main factor, even if there are documents showing antisemitic ideas spreading through the rebel camp. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I have said is that the causes, real or not, resided in the economic conditions, and that the violence manifested itself mostly as antisemitic and xenophobic violence. The instigation was attributed by several sources to people with antisemitic views - this is something the government was not responsible for, and the party who came in power to repress the uprising was only so by proxy. I've never said that they rebelled "because they did not want to work for a Jew", but that their violent anger was largely aimed at Jews, and often "justified" by their adversaries being Jews. This may exclude the original spark, though your argument is not convincing, but fails to account for all the other incidents in the spree, which took on the aspects of a pogrom.

And let's not forget where we started from: regionalism and "anti-boyarism". You have still failed to account for either being factors in the revolt. Dahn 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On KL's talkpage, you wrote: "If you want to take credit for one of the grandest antisemitic upsurges, you might as well present the Iaşi pogrom as a liberation (not to say that Wallachia didn't partake in this murderous spree" I would like to know how many Jews were killed in the uprising, because they were Jews. That is, Jews that were not leasers. I know that Wallachian peasants would also start an uprising. Did they also target Jews? The Iasi progrom, which was ordered by a Muntenian, was something completely different. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made it quite clear there. If not, I'll gladly repeat my point here: if you feel that the 1907 revolt/repression can be attributed to regional divisions, you might just as well start presenting the other pogroms in your part of the land as "anti-Wallachian protests". That is because the revolt was antisemitic for a large part, while it was not at all relevant for any "Wallachian-Moldavian conflict" (it wasn't even especially relevant for the landowner-peasant conflict).

While it matters who ordered the pogrom, it doesn't matter what he was from a regional point of view. Especially considering that the Iaşi riff-raff was up to their necks in murders once the orders came - like the Bucharest riff-raff was on the day of the Rebellion. On the other hand, for various reasons, pogroms and other antisemitic actions in Moldavia were much more widespread over on "your side", and "your side" was the main electoral basis for all the antisemitic movements this country ever produced (with the possible exception of Vaida-Voievod's). People have sought an objective cause for this in the larger percentage of Jews in Moldavia - but, to me, this is partly like saying that Jews cause trouble wherever they go. In fact, it seems to me that the causes have to do, at least in part, with Moldavia's lagging behind and refusing to go through the shock of economic changes until the last moment - many of its inhabitants turned to an antisemitism that was not just xenophobic, but also Luddite. Dahn 23:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I never meant to say that the uprise started due to regional divisions. If my words were interpreted in such way, then I'm sorry. I only wanted to take a jab at the Muntenians for slaughtering Moldavians in cold blood. I, too, have been thinking about the antisemitism that existed in Moldavia. From what I know, problems started with the massive immigration of Jews from Poland. I know that in the era of Stephen--and before him, under Roman I, Jews were respected. Roman granted Jews military pardon (they could not be recruited) in exchange for them paying higher taxes. This was Moldavia's so-called golden era; after its fall (which we can thank the treacherous Muntenians and the imperialistic Ottomans for), things just went to hell. Poor people will always look for something or someone to blame and Jews were an easy target for that. I have also read some descriptions, written by foreign sources (one such source was English), which said that Jews discriminated towards lower classes Moldavians. Well, all higher classes did that to lower classes, but for a minority to do that, is not such a good idea. Of course, none of this could ever justify anything which transpired and I think that scholars don't want to make mention of these events, which could help explain the development of antisemitism in Moldavia, due to fear of being accused of antisemitism. Perhaps now you will understand why I don't really want to focus on anything subsequent to 1504. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: the government what repressed the uprising was presided by the leader of the Liberals in Moldavia. Secondly: the revolt happened in Wallachia as well. So, as you may see, the jab missed its target.

The arrival of Jews also occurred in Wallachia, where, due to causes I outlined before, it was not received as a shock. Granted, the migration happened in lesser numbers, but that is also because Wallachia had opened up to immigration a long time before, and its economic niches were pretty full. On the other hand, let us note that arrival in both countries required reception, which should make the subsequent developments not only absurd, but also hypocritical. Furthermore, Wallachia's decision to emancipate Jews came smack-bang at the climax of Jewish immigration, whereas the Moldavian lobby prevented Jewish integration until the 1920s...

Let's also note that, while Jews were generally placed in positions that had just been made available by an expanding economy (from the few bankers to the many leaseholders and innkeepers), they were not actually "taking" anything from anyone. It was rather the other way, especially since they were in a cul-de-sac country (meaning that there was no place to go from here). In the end, they did not ask for privileges, they asked for rights - the next wave of antisemitic agitation came after Jews were no longer prevented from attending universities. I'll let you guess what city that happened in.

I don't buy that "discrimination of the lower classes" notion. First of all, because no community does things as a whole. Second of all, most Jews were not part of anything but the lower class (largely thanks to the extortion policies enforced by the political class). Even if this were the case: I do believe there is a definitive difference between discriminating as an individual, on your own turf, and discriminating as a state, by employing an entire repressive system which claims to represent the Romanian people as a whole.

As I was saying: Moldavia never had another golden era because many of its inhabitants were too busy trying to re-create Stephen's. And let me add: for a golden era, Stephen's years make a pretty fragile case. Dahn 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your discussion pretty cool. I'd just like to comment on "no community does things as a whole", which I think needs nuancing. Here's how I understand the situation of that time:

More or less specialized diasporae did exist. Not only Jews, but also medieval Italians (more precisely, lombards, etc.), Armenians, etc.
Of course the Elders of Sion did not exist, but while coming to Romania Jews did follow their specializations (finance, medicine) and fully colonized certain economic niches.
The level of economic disparity between peasants and administrators in Moldova was inacceptable. A revolt was unavoidable.
Now, given that 90% of the hated ones were Jews, how could you avoid antisemitism? Or, in a dual manner: Is that real antisemitism, or class struggle with classes divided along ethnic lines?

This does not excuse anyone, but it helps understanding. Dpotop 16:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but:

Law prevented all non-Christians from enjoying full status as subjects. initially, this extended to Armenians and even Catholics, until Europe decided to put a stop to it. I think it is telling that, when the Congress of Paris pushed this resolution on Romania, Romanians did everything in their power so that recognition would not extend to Jews - the "solution" was not to discard religion in awarding legal standing (as was asked), but to admit that Catholics, Lutherans, Armenians etc were Christian as well. This idiocy served to further alienate Romania inside Europe, and we came to deal with it again at Berlin, but Romania still wouldn't budge. Again, i do think this is telling.
Even in the medieval world, there was no absolute requirement for a group to be practicing a particular trade, so even there arguing that someone did wrong by not becoming a doctor or a chimney-sweeper is pretty sinister. Jews who came to Moldavia had all sorts of specializations, or even none at all. Very few of them were physicians, but many of those physicians were outstanding in their trade (it's a similar issue for bankers and whatnot). The majority were not even leaseholders, but small urban traders, inn-keepers, craftsmen etc., and the majority lived in the cities, especially since, from time to time, officials reinforced abusive legislation that prevented them from settling in the countryside (interestingly, the PNL revived and upheld this medieval law).
The niches they were occupying were left open by Moldavia's backwardness (let's call a spade a spade), and it was a similar deal in Bessarabia. As said, Wallachia had those niches well-fitted by then, and mainly with foreigners (whose activities, btw, were not usually the target of any similar scapegoating). In Wallachia and some parts of Moldavia, for example, many of the leaseholders were Greeks - but, and this is telling, the 1907 revolt did not have any particularly anti-Greek message. Add to this that the niches held by the Jews were not actually in direct contact with the peasants, and were not "stealing revenue" from anybody - as Carp once observed, the Jews were basically annoying locals because they worked harder and for less (mainly because they had to). As for the leaseholders: they feeding coal into a burner that kept alive both an agricultural economy and the lifestyle of landowners (be they liberal or conservative). In normal countries, I would picture one does not reproach someone the revenue they gained as a result of offer and demand, let alone attempt to lynch them over it. Still, if one should feel like doing it, perhaps we should look into what the landowners were making (including, again, the landowners who agitated against Jews in order to, as we say, "show them the cat"). That said, I am not convinced that leaseholders were making much money, though many peasants were living on the verge of starvation. To argue that the two situations are related is quite pretentious, and rather like blaming people who gather firewood for deforestation - the causes for Romania's agricultural fiascoes have little to do with how landowners chose to delegate, and much more with endemic problems and, at times, with the sheer stupidity of some peasants.
Let's not go into the class struggle theorem, particularly when at least one of the protagonists was not actually a class. Aside from the discrepancies I mentioned, there are testimonies of antisemitism in the strictest of senses being at work during 1907, in what was a very political fashion. When one of the parties in power actually professed it, and when that party spewed its populist messages directly at the plebs in the countryside, that is not in the least surprising. Dahn 17:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help on Romanian bridgehead

Thank you for formatting the reference, Dahn -- you beat me to it! Eugen Ivan 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPMILHIST Romanian Task Force

Hi Dahn, i'm trying to create the Romanian Military History task force on the Military History WikiProject, and I need some volunteers which will be the future members of the task force. The RO task force will be most probably created after this Polish task force model. Would you be interested in this? I'm sure that the Romanian history deserves it! --Eurocopter tigre 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, you'll be usefull even if you wouldn't be active all the time (as we have only 3 confirmed members until now, 4 including you :D). So, I think you're welcome to join and your help is needed!
Regarding Eremia Grigorescu, I was very surprised realising that such an article didn't exist on wiki, before I created it. So, any help is again always welcome! --Eurocopter tigre 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, i'll do it now, although I removed false info this morning from it. --Eurocopter tigre 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has just been created and lot of help would be needed! here's the link - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Romanian military history task force. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Averescu

Alexandru Averescu, an article in which you highly contributed, is currently under A-class review. You might want to have a look at its entry and leave comments or reply to other's comments. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter tigre 16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good fight

Thank you for your further input on the royalty issue - but we're up against a lot, and note they've been using it on horses lately too! I've put up another rousing message on the Helen page, but who knows if anyone will listen? Maybe the WP:NOT talk page will yield better results, as its readers are outsiders to the royalty circle. Biruitorul 06:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Ceferino Giménez Malla

Blessed Ceferino Giménez Malla - could you check it, please? रोमानीछाय —Preceding comment was added at 03:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protochronism

AfD nomination of Protochronism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Protochronism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protochronism. Thank you.

Thanks, as usual

Thanks for the pointer Dahn. I wasn't looking at punctuation (irresponsibly) but modifying the language. The devil is in the details, indeed. Mea culpa.

I still owe you material on Eliade. No time, as yet, to read through the 3 tomes, but will do so, if I can untangle myself from futile controversies elsewhere. regards Nishidani 10:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ro.wiki

thank you for the kind words. I do agree on the fact that ro.wiki needs to be sanitized but that takes above all numbers. The policies exist and I have managed to keep 2 or 3 articles relatively clean with occasional help from other contributors and/or admins. Before taking this as far up as Jimbo himself maybe some of you guys could lend a hand from time to time. Ro.wiki is pretty much a mirror of Ro itself. It is ... emerging...Plinul cel tanar 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On October 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Traian Demetrescu, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done again Dahn. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re on images, etc

1. I like the chart you made, and I quite agree on the Ahnentafels' probable origin here. I think once a few other good supporters are gathered up, we can initiate a removal process, but still, it's disheartening that articles containing them are now being promoted as FAs. (See also, on an unrelated note, this insipid discussion. Having that article there is bad enough, but I truly never understood having Napoleon Bonaparte (the name under which he is universally known) as "Napoleon I of France".)

2. I only recently noticed the arduous work you've been doing on Commons and in the future will check there before uploading. (Still, I could more easily deal with this if I were an administrator, yet another argument for promoting me - not that you needed one!)

3. I had not seen that discussion, and it's disappointing, as I do look up to a few of those fellows. I thought my standing here transferred there automatically, but I guess not. I also thought small deviations from the party line would not automatically render one "anti-Romanian", but I suppose the concept of pluralism has not yet fully penetrated there. Oh, well. Biruitorul 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and yes, any four of the kings, plus many of the voievods, would make for great articles in proper form. What I meant to imply is that "x was the son of y and fifth cousin of g type royalty articles don't amuse me very much, but if they're fully-fleshed treatments of important historical figures, then by all means I'd like to contribute and see more of that here.
Also, can I ask your view of some of the suggestions I made here? In particular, I think "Occupation of Romania (1940-1944)" is a problematic title (you know full well the battles that have raged regarding that word), so if you can find a more neutral formula to describe the German military presence (assuming, and this is not automatic, that this deserves a separate article), please do so. Biruitorul 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A canvass for a reply? How rude! But you will have a full answer soon enough. Biruitorul 12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that too. There aren't all that many Mormons in Romania (thankfully), but enough material has been written on them and they do have enough of a presence (~2000 people) to justify an article. The only reason I held back from inclusion in the template is that it might encourage creation of articles on religions that have a truly absurdly small presence in Romania, and wished to wait until the actual article was written. Still, if you wish to place it in the template, by all means do so, as we both agree the article should exist and the subject is notable.

On a somewhat related note: Iraqis in Romania? Not an entirely insignificant group (I remember them demonstrating in support of the three journalist hostages), but still (but a more meaningful article on Arabs in Romania could emerge). What about the Uzbeks? Vietnamese? 8602 people declared "altă etnie" in 2002, but one wonders precisely what criteria would make one of those blocs notable enough for an article. From a historic point of view, I think the French in Romania are much more interesting and would deserve being written about. Biruitorul 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party of the Roma

Hi! As far as I'm aware, the party is no longer called "The Social Democratic Party of the Roma" but rather "Partida Romilor Pro-Europa" (I don't know how to translate that in English without it sounding awkward, I guess "Party of the Roma, Pro-Europe"). It most often seems to refer to itself just as "Partida Romilor". Thanks, Ronline ✉ 06:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your support

I'm counting with your full support, in case full support is needed. Thanks. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened, yet, but in case something does happen, I will give you a smoke signal. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

Nice pic -- thanks. Yeah, that wordplay was a bit of fun, reminded me of some disturbance that happened on the corresponding page a while ago; mercifully, that quieted down. At any rate, yes, I'm back in WiFi land, so I can write more often, but I may flip in and out, depending on how busy I get. By the way, I completely dropped the ball on Caragiale while out of range, sorry -- que pasa on that? Also, I started putting in some of the stuff from the Compton article -- will continue, hopefully. Turgidson 15:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About VT article: We can discuss this in more detail on talk page there, but off the top of my head, the first impression I get by looking afresh at it is how long the "controversy" section is when compared to the rest. How about trying to chop it up into pieces that are more manageable, and digestible to the (novice) reader? To have a term of comparison with someone else in the profession of VT, I looked up Category:American political scientists, and I picked from there the most recognizable name (to me): George F. Kennan. It's actually FA article -- not bad, eh? Surely Kennan was caught in controversies of his own (he was right there at the start of the Cold War, designing the containment policy, after all), though surely they were of a more gentlemanly tone than that employed with respect to VT. But still, maybe there is something to be learned from that FA article in terms of how to design the page. Here's a concrete proposal: How about having sections based on various phases of his career (with of course the main one on the VT Commission), and then within each one of those, a subsection about whatever controversies ensued? At any rate, what I'm trying to get at is that one should strive to put the emphasis as much as possible on the actual work (or impact) of the subject, before dwelling on the controversies that may occur in the process. Now, looking at Category:Romanian political scientists, we do have some very high quality articles there, too: Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu and Constantin Stere come to mind. So my question is: can one redesign some of the formatting into sections, the flow, and the emphasis of the VT article (eg, a bit more about achievements and impact, and with controversies more in a subsidiary role than a dominant role), so as to bring it closer to GA or even FA status? Turgidson 03:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I'm being distracted now by a rather upsetting Cfd that got me hoppin' mad, so let me try to tune back to this (quieter, for now!) subject. Yes, I also thought about the fact that those controversies are so entertwined, that it would be very hard to separate them in neat little subsections. But I see you got some good ideas on how some of that could be achieved -- I think it's worth pursuing. One more comment for now. You say: "I was able to find comments on the fact that he has since become a person firmly on the right, and a committed pro-American". I personally have no knowledge of his stance on current issues, but here is a quote from the Compton article that I think backs your sources: "He has also drawn criticism for supporting the war in Iraq. "Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction," he has said of the deposed Iraqi president." So I think it's worth pointing that out at some point in the article, but perhaps not in the "controversies" section, which deals almost exclusively with things Romanian, right? (And, at any rate, what would be controversial about supporting the war in Iraq? Just kiddin'.) Turgidson 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm trying to cool off; fun though to see Mikka and I agreeing on something, for once. At any rate, back to VT: good find with "interiorul gnozei". Things like "Cautarea "firului rosu" pe relatia Marx-Lenin-Stalin nu era un demers neaparat nou si care sa legitimeze critici dure. Acest lucru fusese facut, printre altii, de catre Soljenitin. Noutatea era insa introducerea, de catre Vladimir Tismaneanu, a dezbaterii asupra "responsabilitatii ideilor", cu un puternic accent etic, precum si originalitatea analiticii curentului revizionist" could easily be paraphrased or even quoted into the article, I guess. As for "Views and contributions" - sure; what would be good though is to add there (as it looks like we both agree) another dimension to this article, and discuss how he engaged in the political and scholarly debate in the US, where, after all, the main part of his career has been. It would be good to have more sources (in English!) on that... Turgidson 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being "right wing" is all relative -- it's a bit like that famous New Yorker cartoon by Saul Steinberg (hey, I didn't know he was from Romania -- I just found out!) Be that as it may (and I'd be happy to discuss the concept at length at some point if there is a forum for that), looking at the specifics of the manifesto that VT and others signed, it sounds pretty centrist to my ear, especially from an US-centric point of view (maybe even center-right by today's standards). Sort of like this senator, if you need someone well-known as a reference point. Sounds about right? Turgidson 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions of right vs left are fluid, both with respect to space (US vs Europe, for instance), and time. The same goes for individuals, whose political viewpoint oftentimes changes quite a lot over a lifetime. Neoconservatism is but one instance of this phenomenon. The intellectual odysseys of George Orwell or James Burnham or les nouveaux philosophes, or even Christopher Hitchens to give a more recent example, are well-known. (Examples come immediately to mind of movement in one direction, which sounds to me the typical direction as people mature, and get "mugged by reality", in the apt phrase of Irving Kristol, though I'm sure many examples of movement in the opposite direction can be found.) In a different vein, though, keep in mind Caragiale's dictum about "românul imparţial" (think of the title of this section!): does it only apply to his place and time, or does it have more general meaning? At any rate, I'm digressing — not sure whether any of this is relevant, but maybe it's good to keep in mind some of it when looking at particular cases. Turgidson 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you should see how the labels conservative or liberal or progressive can be turned and twisted till they mean anything and nothing. I much prefer describing someone's specific stands on several well-chosen (and relevant) issues, and let others make their own mind where the person fits in that ever-fluid political spectrum. (Unless we're talking about historical figures, where the context and stands have gelled in place, and one can much more easily apply a label, though sometimes labels going from extreme left to extreme right can apply to the same person [even over a relatively short period of time, as in the 1930s or 1940s, much to the consternation of some editors, as we've seen at times.) At any rate, I gotta run now -- to be continued. Turgidson 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, look who's missing from this list. A slip, perhaps? A big grin :) Turgidson 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the mutation of Mussolini's political views in the early 1920s was kind of strange, and I would not pin it on Marx for what il Duce did. But I'll part company on the direct lineage of ideas from Marx to Lenin (after all, we do have the notion of Marxism-Leninism, right?). Now, I haven't given any serious thought to this matter in a long, long time (I take it as axiomatic), but I'm open to hear arguments to the contrary (though I must say the chances of being convinced are rather low). BTW, what does VT have to say on this? Turgidson 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In looking for an answer to this last question, I found a book review that had a quote that seemed usable. (It's from Bill Buckley's magazine!) I couldn't find the perfect spot to insert it, though -- I think it would better in a full section on critical appraisal of his work. Turgidson 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome Dahn, nice to meet you again. TSO1D 15:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making you jealous

I ordered several old books which my grandmother received last week. Of the books included is this one:

Colegat: Familia lui Michaiu Vitezulu. Analysa critica de Gr.G. Tocilescu, Bucuresci, 1874, prima editie, cu autograf si dedicatie; Familia lui Michaiu Voda Vitezulu. Analysa critica de Gr.G. Tocilescu

I will be receiving the books within two weeks. I don't think I'll start by reading that one. I will probably start with the books that deal with contemporary sources on Stephen and Moldavia, such as this one: Acte moldovenesti din anii 1426-1502 (damian P. Bogdan). I think that book is included. I couldn't find all the books that I wanted, but I found a great deal of them and it only cost me some 220 euro. That includes some 15 old books which are quite rare. Quite a bargain, ey? I ordered them online. They have hundreds of books on the era that is of great interest to you. Well, that's all for now. Till next time. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Transylvania

I saw your edits on the Michael the Brave article. The heraldic issue needs to be adressed with adequate sources, I'll do that when I have the time. Off the record, Transylvania's well known official coat of arms dates to 1659, 59 years after Michael's death. The rampant lions holding a sword are described in Vitezovic's 1701 Stematographia as being the coat of arms of Dacia. In medieval and pre-modern times, according to Rezachevici the name Dacia was used either when reffering to all the three principalities of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia or to just one of them, usually Transylvania. Plinul cel tanar 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ca in ograda noastra nationala si ca la noi la nimenea

Inca o data se adevereste arhicunoscuta si rasverificata de pe-acum banuiala de-a mea ca noi romanii nu suntem solidari unii cu altii. Ura de sine? Ok...nu "ura" dar in mod cert un soi de nemernic dispret fata de tot ce tine de propria etnie. Sigur, nu am exact nevoie de "solidaritatea" ta in particular, dar mi se par usor gratuite afirmatiile tale vis-a-vis de Nylon. Exact ce vrei sa dovedesti prin sprijinul care-l acorzi celorlaltor "contrarians" (ca sa folosesc o sintagma de-a lui Cristopher Hitchins)? Vrei sa "te pui bine" cu ei maimutarindu-le opinia? Chiar vrei sa se epureze NyLon?. Exact ce sti tu despre NY si Londra? Locuiesti aici? Eu da, de bunicel timp..Si articolul cu pricina reflecta o realitate pe care tu n-ai cum s-o banuiesti, intuiesti. Pentru simplul motiv ca tu n-ai acces la aceasta realitate. Strugurii la care nu ajunge vulpea sunt socotiti de ea, oricum, "acri". It's as simple as that my friend. Habar n-am daca esti roman si detaliul asta n-are importanta. Dar simplul fapt ca vorbesti romana ca limba materna te face, automat, membru pe viata al acestui jalnic "club" romanesc. Pacat. Il numesc "jalnic", fiinca noi il facem sa para "jalnic". In speta cei ca tine. Sorry. N-o lua in nume personal. "Cei ca tine" e o generalizare, aproape o metafora (trista) daca vrei. Apostolos Margaritis 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cazi în penibil, Apostolos. Te rog să te linişteşti. Dahn 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Face it Dahn, you're anti-romanian... at least i have an excuse.... ;)Anonimu 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's just a bit too iffy for a reason. I'm not really getting bothered by him. NyLon will survive despite Dahn's desperate backstabbing (vad ca ma "pâreste" acum la Inalta Poarta) and that is what ultimately matters. Hei Dahn! Take it easy man! Apostolos Margaritis 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doppelganger

THanks for pointing out to me this user... I ought to keep an eye on this, but until now, he hasn't seem to have done any real mischief... Cheers (watch these videos, sad world...) Tazmaniacs

Iffy

When I called you "iffy" I wasn't really aware that there is this definition NO. 4. See IFFY. Hmmm...Now don't get paranoic and don't report me. You can't really prove which of the many "iffies" out there I meant. So let's leave this "ambiguity" in place, you believe what you want while I know what I meant.. No, I would never call u names man! P.S. More and more references are getting piled up making a strong case for the survival of NyLon. See this latest Italian text, the issue is "hot" ...it's "happening"...before our eyes...yes...we need just to open up our eyes a bit and look around. The past is attractive but what really really matters is the "TODAY" the present..Right? Agree? So please, don't obstruct in the future wiki-articles that are focusing on this ongoing "present day reality" if I may call it so Apostolos Margaritis 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-nough. Dahn 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see..Tazmaniacs has common senseApostolos Margaritis 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, snap out of it, why don't you. Taz's comment is in reference to me pointing out that a users has taken a name almost exactly like his. As for the rest: if you continue to spam here and discuss how much common sense I have, you'll only be making it harder on yourself the next time someone brings you to AN/I. I strongly suggest you walk away from this page and cease all form of covert or disguised attacks against all other users, as you are already on your final warning. Dahn 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames

Good question(s) -- I've been struggling with some of the same questions. Still no perfect answers, but a few things that seem to emerge. First of all, it looks to me pretty clear that we should not have both Category:Surnames and Category:Romanian surnames on the same page, since the latter is a child of the former. I've been doing that much as I could, waiting to see if anyone would object before going further. More iffy is whether to treat these pages as mere disambiguation pages, or have them more developed, with something on, say, etymology, variants, relation to place names, the works. I tend towards the latter, but possibly would stay with the former till things get more developed (beyond a disambig-looking page, that is). Finally, speaking of variants: I didin't know what to do with Niculescu: there are also lots of Nicolaescu and Nicolescu out there (and probably Nicolesco, etc, and even Nicholson--I've seen that done). Should those be in separate pages? I'd tend towards a single one, with related names grouped together, and redirects to most common form -- but how to decide which one is more common?? Ah, decisions, decisions... Oh, one more thing: What to do with names that are used as both first name and last name (Ion, Matei, Vasile, etc)? Or even both at once?? Use this stub as a guide? Turgidson 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting more complicated than I thought. So perhaps, after the first rush to get off the ground with such pages, and experimenting with them, it's time to take stock, and see where to go, before things get too heavy to move around or easily modify. One thing to keep in mind, I think, is what the potential demand for them is, and why would people look at these pages, and use them productively -- and move from there. Couple of concrete examples:

The page on Voiculescu was started by an editor who is a (British) mathematician (or so I was informed by someone else in an unrelated discussion). Now, I don't want to speculate too much, but my educated guess is that he was looking for "the" V., and was taken to the "pseudo" V., and that's why he started that stub, as a mere disambig page. Even though disambig pages are not very snazzy, I'd say let's keep this in mind as a basic, "service" kind of motivation. (In a somewhat similar vein, I'd say that the page for "the" Moscovici is still a redlink, but that's all relative...)
If a name can be both specific to a country (or ethnicity), but also used elsewhere, it looks that others use both the parent act and the daughter cat, see eg. Boulanger, or simply don't say where the name comes from, eg, Dupont, or don't even say it's a surname to start with, eg, Durand! So I don't know what they're doing with French names and others, but maybe at least with Romanian names this can be done on a more syatematic basis.
How come there are articles like Armenian surnames, but no Romanian surnames? It may be a good idea to lay out some of the basics in such a "mother" article, which would serve as a guide to the cat, inter alia. While at it, how come Category:Surnames does not metion ro? I just remedied that.

OK, let me stop here for now -- more later, hopefully. Turgidson 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure about this business -- to buy time, I added one more: Florescu (surname). But now I realize even the names of these pages are not uniform -- some have (surname) at the end, some not. Maybe this can be decided quickly and painlessly -- and then have a redirect to the alternate form. Here's a thought: how about asking on the ro bulletin board for wider input? Where there are two, the strength increases -- isn't that an old Romanian saying (well, with the implied meaning that 2 is actually ≥2)? Turgidson (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On November 15, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergey Kavtaradze, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I adressed the issue of the seal in further detail on my talk page. Plinul cel tanar 11:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ro.wiki again

Just for fun: [2]. I'm to busy to do anything about it. Plinul cel tanar 11:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliade's philosophy

Sorry about my neglect of the Eliade project. I'm still planning to eventually re-read that book I told you about and add info to the article, but I've been extremely busy. For Eliade's early philosophical ideas, I like your idea of creating a whole new section called "Philosophy". Perhaps we could divide it into sub-sections for "pre-academic" and "academic" philosophy (if you can think of better terminology, please use it), and move the info in "Eliade's philosophy of religion" into the "academic" sub-section. The new stuff you informed me about just now would go in the "pre-academic" section. Thanks for looking into this. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea sounds best. I agree that having a "non-academic philosophy" subsection would be a bit confusing (what exactly is "non-academic philosphy" anyway?). I suggested that only because I think there's a definite continuity between Eliade's early philosophical work and the philosophical name-dropping in his later "history of religion" writings. In my own humble, un-professional opinion, Eliade seems to have always remained a philosopher at heart: he clearly still wanted to make his research about religion philosophically relevant, shall we say. But, given overall structural considerations, your plan sounds best. I'll try to check back once you've made the additions and offer some feedback. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 19 November, 2007, a fact from the article Alexandru Toma, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moldova

why should I be blocked because nobody comes to speak with me about my edits on discussion.--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova

Hey there.

It's only semiprotection to release the anon-IP warring for a while. Editors who have been registered for more than four days can still edit the article.

For your reference, however, we always protect whatever version is current regardless of what it is (unless there are attacks, or legal problems). This is to avoid both the possibility and perception of "taking sides" in a dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 18:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proverbs

Yes, I'm also concerned about the (real) potential of getting into disputes of the sort "well, that's a well-known proverb, we've had it in English since before the Norman conquest" -- vs "no, no, no, it's an old Daco-Roman proverb" kind of thing (I'm exaggerating a bit, but I've had conversations along those lines outside WP with some good friends of mine). On the other, one needs to be bold at times, otherwise one just gets daunted by the task, and reverts to the default value, which is—0, zip, nada, zilch. OK, having said that, yes, I agree, in this case, it may be better to proceed from the top down (instead of the bottom up approach, which I normally favor), and develop first the "mother article" for Romania proverbs -- perhaps pointing initially just to the existing list. So, to mix some metaphors, who's gonna go first to the mountain — the chicken or the egg? Turgidson (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Müteferrika

I don't see why you removed the reference to The Republic of Letters and the Levant. While you are correct that the book says a lot about this man, and you personally might find this sloppy referencing, this is no reason to remove it altogether. You fix something you consider "sloppy", you don't remove it. This reference is particularly interesting right after that sentence, since many old references refer to Muteferrika being a Calvinist originally, whereas this book discusses that topic in detail and therefore is an important reference for the particular sentence it was put next to. Erkcan (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dahn, your rationale sounds totally reasonable to me, but it is missing something. Unfortunately, we do not have a reference to Muteferrika being a Unitarian originally. The web reference which is cited all around the article mentions that he was a convert, and nothing more. In principle I am in favor of having almost everything cited in wikipedia and in this case it is more important because multiple resources had conflicting discussions in the past and this book summarizes the discussions and makes a concrete conclusion on the topic. When I added this reference, I was thinking of people who could compare other sources and wikipedia and when they see a conflict, they might follow up the reference given. Erkcan (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page 266. Though having read the actual paragraph itself, I must admit the book does not discuss the previous conflicting viewpoints in detail, it simply mentions what was long been believed about him and that recent research revealed that he was Unitarian. Still better than having no references, I think.Erkcan (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland

Thank you, and many thanks for your support. And I still owe you a reply on various issues - coming soon! Biruitorul (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just what we needed, I suppose: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Biruitorul (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only to you, Dahn: not even I ever give much thought to the PNC! I picked blue from the flag: yellow can't quite be seen, and red... Biruitorul 02:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An MP promoting himself here? Why not? Also, a great biography here -- I love the explanatory comment in small letters! Biruitorul 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Your" articles

Why don't you have a list of your major contributions, like others do? some of yours are really interesting, but they are lost among the numeorous other stubs and low-level articles created everyday.Anonimu (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but, to be frank, I lost count. (I remember I wanted to count my DYK entries for some contest, just for fun, but it was just too much trouble finding them in the pile - especially since they forgot to credit me for two or three of them.) Also, I picture a list would be sitting like bait for, well, you know... Dahn (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 21 November, 2007, a fact from the article Petre Borilă, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ionut Dimofte Name

Hello, I´m a wikipedian from Portugal and I would like to ask if you don´t mind to change the spelling of the article about the Romanian rugby player Ionut Dimofte to the correct form in romanian, with a sign under the t, since I´m unable to do that. Thanks ! Mistico (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Teohari Georgescu

Again, thank you for your constructive observation. Let me first explain why I consider it constructive: It will help place correct tags and usage rationale for this, and consequently for most of the images I have recently uploaded (those that have or might have similar character as this). It will thus prevent unfair usage.

Regarding the image, I intended to use it to illustrate the article of the person Teohari Georgescu, and that of the public function which the person has hold for 7 years. I do not know whether usage of it elsewhere in WP is ok or not. Perhaps we can inquire from someone who is responsible for copyright-related issues on WP. I definitively do not intend to cause any disruption or to infringe on anyone's rights. But I am equally committed to the usage of this photo everywhere legally permitted.

I do not understand exactly what do you mean by single. The only thing I see in the copyright tag is "to illustrate the object in question" within Wikipedia. That illustration is in his article, but also in the article Securitate. At least in my understanding of the word "illustrate". Obviously, we can require the WP community to comment on the meaning of the word "illustrate", and if there will be a general view that placing it anywhere else would be violating some legal right, then I definitively do not intend to be stubborn. Now, in practical terms, obviously it has no place in other articles than Teohari Georgescu or those directly related to his life and/or activity. I intend to keep a size 10pt copy of it on my user page, just as a record of the images I uploaded. I doubt that the two users that currently have a link to it on their talk pages (placed by me) would need more than just a link to the image (not the image itself). So I do not see any actualy practical problem. But we definitively can debate the issue for the sake of theory: whether it is ok or not to use it somewhere else on WP. :Dc76\^talk 13:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. Thank you. :Dc76\^talk 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Ginz sketch

Hi, your statement about the status of the image is incorrect. The image is reffered to be in the public domain, coming from commons. Original is placed in the Yadvashem museum, by the uploader statement it is a screen got from the magazine got by him, thus it is in the public domain. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved discussion to my talk page and left the notice if you don't mind [3]. It became little bit long, I also invited Kirill Lokshin and Piotrus (both admins) to help in this issue. You are very welcome on my talk page to discuss it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, no problem with that. But I think we should continue on talk pages until resolved. Maybe there should be a fair-use in apply, because there might not be a possibility to create free-image copy ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(just out of topic:) Its deletion should be a big miss for wikipedia, that image is backgrounded by a strong story. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Piłsudski

You are right those events are a bit too detailed for the main article. I am not sure what kind of subarticle could we create to include this info - if you have any suggestions, do post them on article's talk (or be bold and start new article). And please do not hesitate to comment at FAC; too many comments are from POVed pro- or anti-Pilsudkitees who want (or don't want) to see the article featured at all costs. Comments from neutral editors are highly appreciated - and needed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilsudski met many foreign dignitaries and travelled abroad. I just don't see how we can mention one of those meetings, but not others. As for the novel - was this a fictional one? He was a character of many, many novels and short stories, particularly in Poland. Again, this should be described - but the article is already getting long. And again, I would very much appreciate if you could read through the article and comment at FAC at some point (the discussion is probably closers to the end than not).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can always add it and we will see how balanced it is. I just don't want to split it in the midsts of FAC process, as there are some people complaining about the article being 'not stable'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comprehensiveness, remember this is an encyclopedia article, not a book. I have read a 2-volume biography of P. while writing this article - about a 1000 pages. I have seen several others and skimmed through them, as I had with several books regarding specific issues about Pilsudski (most recently, one about P. in caricature and one about death of P.). In the end, I believe Wiki will collect all information - but obviously this will be done through subarticles. For that reason I have not incorporated your information into the article - as it seems to me it belongs to a subarticle, and I simply had no time to create them - as the main article can be comprehensive without the subarticles. If you would like to create a subarticle with that info, please go ahead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: novels - I would expect this holds true for most major historical personas. I'd rather add this to the book/author pages, but listing that stuff in historical personas article may be overwhelming. I agree with your arguments, but in the end, we need to subarticles. I've been creating many filling various red links in P. article, but I was concentrating on stuff like this, not Early life of Józef Piłsudski or Józef Piłsudski in literature. Such articles, of course, should be created (and one day, surely will) - but I believe they don't need to be created for the main (parent) article to be comprehensive and Featured.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you agree with my argument above that the list of P. appearances in novels would be extremly long, and such lists are not common in other articles? He appeared in hundreds of publications; similarly, he appeared in hundreds of illustrations of photos. Surely their lists are not needed for Featured status? Regarding facism, from what I have read it appears a rather minor and undue point: a few people accuse him of this, more reliable sources debunk it. It seems like something to discuss in detail in some subarticle, perhaps in sanacja - but not really in P. (who was quite openly critical of facism).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: P. and facism. The problem is that all the scholars who discuss it in more than passing agree he was not a facist. Read for example this. Stanislav Andreski in a chapter dedicated to this (Pseudo-Facism against Semi-Facism in Poland between the World Wars) writes: "So long as Marshal lived, the regime exhibited no features pertaining specifically to Facism as distinct from other forms of authoritarianism". Stanley G. Payne in A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 writes that "Piłsudskiite regime... should be classified as a moderate pluralist authoritarian regime that remained in power because of the prestige and charisma of Pilsudski, the strength of the military, and the force of nationalism, as well as an interventionist economic policy." Much confusion results because the colonels who succeeded Piłsudski veered closer into fascism (ref); because of popularity of fascism at that time and people confusing authoritarianism with fascism (and of course there are similarities; there are no ideal types after all). Walter Laqueur in Fascism: Past, Present, Future explains it well: One would hope that there would be no need to define once again the essence of fascism. But it is necessary because in popular parlance it is used quite indiscriminately. Writers and speakers tend to denounce their political foes as fascists... it has become a synonym for a dozen or more phenomena, usually negative in character. Twentieth-century dictatorships may be detestable, but they are not necessarily fascist. Japan in the 1930s was not a fascist country, nor was Atatürk's Turkey, nor Poland under Pilsudski, nor Spain under Franco.. This is compounded because Piłsudski's enemies - primarily communists - accused him of that during his life and afterwards, particularly in People's Republic of Poland early era which tried to demonize the Second Polish Republic (this is discussed in legacy). Now, of course, I am sure we can find a random out of context quote about 'facist regime of Piłsudski' - but it will most certainly be a quote from somebody who is not a specialist in fascism, nor history of Poland (or somebody who was writing to fulfill a certain political agenda). Therefore I see no need to discuss accusations of P. facism in the article - but I would be happy to do so in some other article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Italian Neofascist organizations

Category:Italian Neofascist organizations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –

GA Nomination of Traian Demetrescu‎

An article you recently created and significantly expanded, Traian Demetrescu‎, has been placed on hold until further improvement can be done after first making the clarifications that are needing to be addressed. I have also placed this notice on the talk page of the nominator, SeizureDog. Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well I've failed the article for now due to the two comments asking for it to be delisted until the proper sources can be found. I do hope it gets to GA standard once again, and if so, drop me a line and I'll review it for you again. Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 2 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iordan Chimet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowiki Dahn

I am leaving this message on my own page, to clarify that I am the same person who agreed to use the ro:Utilizator:Dahn account on that project. Up to now, that account was not mine, and was probably usurped as a means to misrepresent me. I hereby state that I have previously never signed into an account on the Romanian wikipedia, and only edited sporadically as IPs automatically assigned to me (most of which I have acknowledged as mine, others being used only for very minor edits).

I wish to have a very limited activity on that project. This is due to its problems in enforcing wikipedia policies, and to its general format issues - problems which I consider endemic and too much to handle for a user who wants to maintain and, where applicable, improve the level of contributions to the English wikipedia. I am saying this for two distinct reasons: I am offering what I consider to be a definite answer to requests for participation in improving its content there; I am self-limiting my level of involvement, to let others know that I will not be readily available to comment there (and, if they should want me to comment, they may approach me here only if the matter will not likely consume much of the time I am investing into this project). Dahn 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dahn! I actually came here to ask you about this sudden change of mind, but then I've seen the above statement. All I can say is: "Be very welcome" AND "At last!" Thank you very much for having considered to join! It's bizarre though what you said about the account, as I haven't seen any other contributions besides those you made yesterday. --Vlad|-> 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you! Yes. well, let's call this my general disclaimer: I don't want to be pestered here by all people I run into over there (of course, you and others I already know here can "pester" me all you want, and, in fact I would prefer you do it here, at my headquarters). What I meant to say in my original statement is that I do not expect to be contributing there much, even though, in theory, I could, and that the account will be quite inactive - I want to concentrate here, and the only reason I contributed as much as I did had to do with some matters of principle that matter for the whole project there (while, over here, I'm a "quirks" person). Dahn 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fsol

Thanks for the ":::" info. But why did you revert the whole article? I just ordered it in a coherent format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsol (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the input on references. But still it seems to me that the structure I was proposing was good (in that it showed every critic and every response) and did not omit anything. So I propose we work on that one.--Fsol (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I think we both agree that this section is a mess. We should start a discussion over how to reformulate and structure everything in a coherent and comprehensible way.--Fsol (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbu/Barbilian

I see that two years ago you moved the page on Dan Barbilian to Ion Barbu. I sort of understand the reason -- probably more people have heard of the poet than the mathematician -- but is this self-evident? His birth name was, after all, Barbilian, and that's how he was known at his place of employment (the University of Bucharest) throughout his professional life. There are spaces called "Barbilian spaces", and even an AMS MSC category named after him; I would argue that he is universally known as Dan Barbilian outside the artsy set. At any rate, I've been trying on-and-off to expand the stub on B/B, and I can write more about his math life and impact. I don't know anything about his poetry (except that it exists, and that he was rather well known for it), but is that so much more important than his math career (which has a measurable, identifiable impact) to justify calling the page after his pen name (instead of his official name)? Perhaps, but the case should be made -- right now, I don't see much about his poetry, except for that quote from Alexandru Ciorănescu that was added today. (Incidentally, how come we don't have a page on Ciorănescu? Looks like he wrote a bunch of stuff, may be worth having an article on him.) Turgidson (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to rock the boat -- let's let the name be for the time being. Maybe once the article develops further, it's going to become clearer what to do. In the meantime, I checked: the AMS classification that uses his name is: "51C05 (1980-now) Ring geometry (Hjelmslev, Barbilian, etc.)" How about this for a stop-gap measure: tentatively split the article in 3 parts (general bio, math career, poetry career), and use in each part consistently a single name (Barbilian, Barbilian, Barbu, respectively)? Right now, using Barbu to refer to math publication is kind of absurd -- that's the main thing I'd like to avoid for now. Turgidson (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, any suggestions on what else to do with this article? I expanded it quite a bit, with stuff I could glean here and there—does it sound too much like a movie plot? I'm still struggling to come up with a better (and perhaps more standard) lead; what to highlight, and what not? — Turgidson (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll try improving the lead, to try and make it more catchy -- am thinking of submitting this to DYK, hope it fits. There's just one more angle to this story that I read about, but I couldn't quite find a good source for it: the lineage going back to Ţepeş, through the Kretzulescus. Unfortunately, we don't have an article on the Kretzulescu family (or a category, for that matter). There is some mention on this in the article on the German guy, but he sounds (well, sounded) like a flake. A bit more solidly, there is a mention in this movie blurb; is that a reliable source? Of course, something like this should be decidable through the established literature, but alas, I couldn't find the ultimate confirmation. If this could be established, besides making the German stuff more understandable, provide perhaps the ultimate hook -- the GUT of Dracula & McCarthy, and all in between! One more question, while at it: Were the Caradja/Caragea related to ILC, by any chance? (I should check the article, but I didn't get a chance).

As for the more mundane question about —: yes, I used to leave a space around them in the old days, but in the past few years I realized the convention is to glue them on both sides to the text, but it still looks funny sometimes (same as for the comma inside the quotes — even if correct, still looks strange to me). At any rate: (1) I'm not adamant about this, one way or the other; (2) Looking at the manual, I now realize perhaps the best is to use the {{mdash}} template—sort of like for dates: I'm not quite sure what it does, but perhaps the reader can set the defaults on how to treat it, as for dates. That would probably be the best solution, but I don't quite know, I need to experiment first. Turgidson (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks—I knew it was too good to be true! I did waste some time trying to trace that story of the granddaughter (some blogs and such repeat it), but I got a bit suspicious when I could not find solid corroboration—that's why I didn't put it in the article. BTW, I didn't know about that AfD, but if you ask me, it was the right thing to do—there is no much there, just lightness of being (what a great movie that was!) Turgidson (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read the book, a very long time ago, but it's a suppressed memory: despite his bitching about how they messed it up, I think the movie is better than the book, and I only recall the latter. And Juliette Binoche was just great in that movie—and they don't even mention it in the lead to her article! Turgidson (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who knows, maybe Radu Mihnea has some kids, after all? Looks like the www is chock-full of people who claim to have some connection to VŢ: apparently, even Ulysses S. Grant had something to do with him, through the Cantacuzino. Didn't someone or another say, "Cum nu vii tu, Ţepeş doamne, ca punînd mîna pe ei / Să-i împarţi în două cete: în smintiţi şi în mişei / Şi în două temniţi large cu de-a sila să-i aduni..."? Turgidson (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea about Scrisoarea a III-a: come to think of it, it's totally odd there's no article on it. Unfortunately, I have only K-12 knowledge of it, but I'd be interested in finding out more about the hidden meanings there. About that party: I don't know much about current wheeling and dealing, but I must say I was rather surprised to learn who they sent to the EP. As for the caltaboş guy—well, 'nough said. I'll have a shot of palinka to forget about it. Turgidson (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just felt the need to blow a raspberry in the direction of you two guys :P :P :P -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn: Thanks again for the pointers on the lead—that helped. Speaking of Brianna, here is a 2001 New York Review of Books article by Tony Judt. It's a rather jaundiced view of Romania: to set the tone, he starts with her posing in Mircea Dinescu's Plai cu Boi, and segues into the "nightmare of post-Communist political meltdown". Oy, boy oh boy. Turgidson (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those diffs you added at DYK -- hope they help. (I'm rather nevous about the process there, I kind of avoided submitting, since I don't quite know what works and what doesn't, and what it really takes to write a catchy hook.)

As for Tony Judt: Olteniţa is in Moldavia? Hah, I wonder whether that would make Anittas laugh or cry... Generally speaking, I found Judt at his best with older history, but a hit-or-miss when it comes to recent stuff, especially the economic aspects. Maybe the piece dated real quick (especially after 1/1/07), but it almost looked like he was talking about another country when he was comparing (unfavorably!) the Ro quality of life to that of Peru, Libya, or Lebanon. At any rate, I still think he's a very good source for the 1940s--1950s, but I'd shy using him for, say, the 2000s, based on such bloopers. (Although I must say I found his metaphor for the 2000 election quite apt.) One more note: I found his very first note really funny: thanking ro:Mircea Mihăieş for bringing Plai cu Boi to his attention? Boy, talk about damning that guy with faint praise! Turgidson (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny article from Ziua! Bayonet attack? That D.E guy, whoever he is, is hyperventilating. By the way, I shouldn't be so harsh on Plai cu Boi. I haven't really looked at it, just saw an issue on a stand close to the Benetton Store once a few years back, and remember thinking it was a great play on words, but not much more. And, I still can't visualize Dinescu as a neaoş version of Hef, the way Judt does—too much of a culture shock. But I'll give it a second chance next time I pass by across Cercul Militar Naţional. (Hey, why is that a redlink? We have a nice pic from Jmabel for it!) Turgidson (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABP

Oh, yes, indeed. Which reminds me, we should do likewise with Eliade's infobox (and in-text too): here was the initial discussion; I've lost immediate contact with those sources but I'm sure I could retrieve them easily. Regarding my planned oil industry in Romania article -- 1 & especially 2! Beautiful articles! I wonder if we couldn't get rid of some of Nergaal's stuff on copyvio grounds: this is the first paragraph of this, for instance (and neither is written in English, but never mind that). Biruitorul (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O ye of little faith! But yes, you are right to worry. I've heard (only vaguely, and some time ago) that Jimbo Wales had to intervene in a dispute on the Serbian Wikipedia because matters were getting out of hand, but what the dispute was and how it was resolved, I don't know. (Update: this is where I read it.) As you may know, Khoikhoi and possibly others (Ronline, when he was more active there) have tried to rein in ro.wiki's excesses, but to little avail. I suppose any cleanup operation would be long and tedious. Your first task should be to identify any interlocuteurs valables among the admins there. We know Andrei Stroe to be a good guy. How about Emily and Laurap? If this road turns out to be a dead end, then someone with special oversight might help. Jimbo is one option, but maybe a meta figure like Anonymous Dissident or Thunderhead. The Catholic saying comes to mind, if you can't pray to the Father, pray to the Son; if you can't pray to the Son, pray to the Holy Spirit; if you can't pray to the Holy Spirit, pray to the Virgin Mary. So my idea is to start with the "Virgin" and move up slowly to the "Father" -- that is, if you have time and energy; I admit this is a daunting prospect. Biruitorul (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, best of luck. A pretty rough start (almost a straight translation from ro.wiki) -- no real references, no mention of architecture or film, a tacked-on conclusion -- but it is a start. I see you mentioned the anti-Arghezi essays elsewhere, and this one meshes with the A. Toma article somewhat smoothly, so bringing it up to standards shouldn't be too hard (plus we may have a couple of images to use), but it will take some work. Biruitorul (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on that corrupted reference. A couple of further thoughts (I see this as being just in the opening stages). Right now, the article assumes de-Stalinization occurred in 1953/56, but of course there's the quite convincing Tismăneanu theory that it never really occurred. But there still was some sort of a thaw, and with that the end of "classic" socialist-realism. Yet we still need an idea (based on sources, which I'm sure exist) when the phase came to an end ('53? '56? A bit later?). Also, are there sources linking the Ceauşescu personality cult to socialist realism? I couldn't say for sure, but based on what's available, that section could either end early (pre-1965) or be broadened to cover the Golden Age. Of course, the cult of Stalin did form a big part of the classic phase, so it's possible some writers have made the link. Then there's also the Gheorghiu-Dej cult - I remember reading an essay on that once; I forgot where, but that too existed and may have influenced the arts. Anyway, just some ruminations. As you can tell, the intersection of Party and arts/culture is an area of interest to me (and I imagine to you). Maybe even a mention in the PCR article of this area, if relevant. And then there's the whole related subject of propaganda (something on these lines?), of Leonte Răutu, just waiting to be explored. Biruitorul (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, but first, for what it's worth, the author sort of restated the obvious: [4]. Do I ask him for a page number, or what? Biruitorul (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, let's forget about proletcultism for a little while...Crăciun fericit! Biruitorul (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - of possible interest. Biruitorul (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian proverbs

Hi Dahn, I was discussing with Turgidson about building a "Romanian proverbs" article. However, I just noticed that it was already deleted once [5] Do you have any suggestion about recreating it, do you think we'd be successful in keeping it? I'm also working on some basic structure here User:AdrianTM/Sandbox can you lend a hand or give me some suggestions (is this a good start -- I'm talking about structure) feel free to edit that sandbox if you have time. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re

On one hand you may be right... on the other hand it sort of leaves me as the lone anti-dacomaniac ranger and reinforces rumors about my hidden 4GWar agenda. Anyway... there is this ideea I've had... have you seen the map illustrating the article? A masterpiece on its own! Do I take it it's in the public domain now? Cause if it is... we may find it useful afterall... Plinul cel tanar (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License

For your own edification: [6]. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, your defiant attitude is unplaced. The images of the churches in the article en:Roman Catholicism in Romania are alfabeticaly classified, sure after the name of the village, not after the name of the commune. For example, the church of Şandra is at Ş, not at B, from comuna Beltiug. Please understand that the place of the church in Babda is at B, not at C. Thanks! --Mihai Andrei (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff

Yes I noticed that, at that time it was only the economic articles and I was tied up with other stuff and didn't consider the pattern that evident although an alarm light started to blink. What should we do, start a checkuser? -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you noticed you should ask, I didn't talk to Alex Bakharev he probably watches that page, I think it's a good idea to contact somebody who knows Bonnie's ways. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it was nice practice (of WP:AGF). --Illythr (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ro wiki... again

I'm sorry about what happened, I can't help feeling at least partly guilty for what happened, I mean I've been pestering you about editing there and all... To be honest I'm not all that surprised, you need to work your pedagogical skills real hard to make a point there. I believe we both know that the problem is cultural... and to be honest they have to work things out themselves. Forcing their hand by getting the foundation into this will only reinforce their conviction that a secret anti-Romanian society is controling wikipedia. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thanks for being careful. If you do need my input, with a deposition or anything, I'm ready to help. Things have definitely gone out of control and the sad thing is that few people dare make their voices heard. For fear, most probably. The days when everyone could say what they thought seem to be gone. — AdiJapan ☎ 19:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pilsudski 2

Thanks for commenting on that disruptive editor. I would love to improve the article further, but as I outlined previously, the issues we discussed would make good subarticles, but are too detailed for the main article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I have added a note on those issues to the article. To properly review those works would be fascinting - alas, it would also constitute a research equal at the very least to a creating professional review article; and as much as I'd like to do it - I don't have time for the project of such magnitude (particularly I have to write a similiar review for my PhD thesis in the coming months, albeit not on Polish history).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hello Dahn! I wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best in the new year. - Darwinek (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Toma

Hi -- I stumbled over this guy while searching for some info about Luca. Looks like a novel take to me -- a contemporaneous left-wing (Trotskyist?) critique of the Communist regime in Romania, circa 1948. Here and here is more about the fellow. I have no idea how significant this is, or how notable the subject is, though the journal where he published some of his work looks notable enough (it rates a WP article). At any rate, maybe it's worth developing into an off-the-beaten-track article? I don't have much experience with the milieu, but I'm game to give it a shot (if nothing else, to figure out who he was talking about in some of those veiled references here), if it seems worth the while. Turgidson (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no rush, see how it goes — I figured I'd put the idea and links in writing before I lost the lot in the shuffle (I gotta start a sandbox or something where to store odds and ends like this—a New Year's resolution!). The International Institute of Social History mini-bio sounds tantalizing, there is nothing clickable there, alas. BTW, that Institute looks like a potential treasure-trove of archival material relating to some of these figures; has info from there been used before at WP? Turgidson (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About IISG: Hah, I see I was trying selling coal to Newcastle—or, as they say somewhere else, cucumbers to the gardener. Perhaps they'll go digital at some point, though I imagine it would cost mucho dineros to scan all those hundreds of linear meters of archives. Ro.wp: I tested the waters recently, but it looks like a pretty unfriendly (and frantic) place to me. I may try adding stuff now and then, but as of now, I better pace myself—it's a zero-sum game, and there is that much total energy I can devote to wp; spending it on gut-wrenching fights is not my idea of fun. But I'll keep my eye on it, and may say more if and when it looks like it may make a difference. Turgidson (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altermedia

You asked yesterday: "It's hard to track down, but the whole deal actually relates to a neofascist site, managed by David Duke, that ro:wiki kept using as a source (you actually commented on it at some point, when a user kept pushing it here)."

Yes, I've been following the discussion, slowly forming an opinion (I had never heard of that site before the subject came up, on the VT talk page). As you probably know, I don't like to jump to conclusions, but rather, I prefer to look at an issue from several angles, wait for various evidence to be presented, and give everyone a chance to make their case (which is so diametrically opposite to what some ro.wp guy commenting on the notice board recently assumed I do, that it's simply hilarious). At any rate, the evidence you presented yesterday on the RS noticeboard—this document from the Internal Ministry of North Rhine-Westphalia—has clinched the case for me: not only is the tendency you describe apparent by looking at the posters displayed on that site, but this is confirmed by an un-impeachable source.

On a lighter note, I meant to link something in the above to the saying, "Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lyin' eyes?", but alas, it's not on WP. I thought it was from the lyrics of Lyin' Eyes, by the Eagles, but not quite. I'd be curious to know where it comes from, if you have some idea (I still think it's from some lyrics, but more likely, from the 1950s). Turgidson (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT attributes the saying to Richard Pryor, but again, I suspect it goes back much further. Turgidson (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Lots of food for thought, but the subject is too weighty (and not very pleasant), so perhaps it can wait for after the New Year? Looks like a tangled web, it's gonna take some effort to untangle all that. In the meantime, yes, alas, Richard Pryor was no longer so funny in his later years, but I still remember Blazing Saddles fondly. The Who you gonna believe... expression is quite notable, I think — and is used in a variety of forms, contexts, and meanings. An interesting twist is that it is sometimes used to make the opposite, counter-intuitive point: that images can sometimes lie—well, that is, when taken out of context, they can manipulate and/or distort what they are supposed to show. (A sample usage is on this blog, referring to the photo discussed here.) But probably the most common usage is in political commentary, with the meaning sort of like Pryor's and the Eagles' (hey, you don't like Hotel California? I think it's one of the great rock songs of all times!). Does any expression like this exist in the ro media? I mean, I can just envision a Saturday Night Live-type of sketch, with a guy stuffing blutwurst and palinka in the trunk of his car, caught on camera by some enterprising newshounds, explaining, with an air of pained innocence, Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lyin' eyes? Sounds too far-fetched? Turgidson (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TV story is good — I didn't know it (I studiously avoid watching TV, much prefer the www). Yep, I'm thinking of adding a page on that expression (and various other sayings and proverbs, when I get the knack on how to go about it); I still need to research the history of it, and dig out good quotes from RSs. (The master at this sort of thing is William Safire, in his long-running "On Language" column in the New York Times Magazine, see e.g here; that's a potential goldmine to dig for various etymology and usage issues, I wonder whether anyone has looked into it here at WP.) As for songs: well, it so much depends on when one first hears them — they tend to be much better when fresh, than after years of use, over-use, and abuse (think muzak). Dated as the music in Hotel California may be now, the lyrics are still rather stunning, I think (and also, full of hidden references, I hear). At any rate, one more parting thought on all this: did you know that the well-known expression, Life in the Fast Lane, comes from that same Hotel California album? (And not from Life on the Fast Lane, which came later.) Turgidson (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how free association goes! While searching for some piece of Bill Safire related to the above musings, I stumbled upon this piece from (one of the branches of) the outlet in the section title. I don't have the patience, or the inclination to read through more of this stuff, but, if this article is any indication, yes, this is really, really fringe stuff, that I cannot imagine would pass muster with any of the relevant WP policies. At least, I hope not. Turgidson (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is The San Diego Union-Tribune's take on one of the threads above: "Perhaps the governor's idea of faith is what Groucho Marx had in mind with his line, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”" OK, Duck Soup makes more sense, and is way before either Pryor or the Eagles. So I googled with renewed energy, and found this discussion of the phrase, which refers to wikiquote for a Chico Marx attribution! Turns out that the guy running this Language Log is Mark Liberman, who also gives there a really apt (though grammatically shaky) usage of the phrase, by Slavoj Žižek, in a New York Times piece referring to the classic TV performance by Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf. Hmmm... One really needs to get to the bottom of this. Turgidson (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas wishes

Dahn — thanks for the wishes. Here is a Christmas carol to mark the spirit. Enjoy, and have a Merry Christmas! Turgidson (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Crăciun Fericit!--R O ^{A M A T A A}| msg 17:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

translation

User:Adrianzax just wrote something on my talk page in Romanian. I have absolutely no idea what it says. Can you help me out please?! K. Lásztocska^talk 23:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think you've bored me enough? Not at all! It is so nice of you to offer such a detailed reply.

I used to know Romanian better than I do now. One of my neighbors was Romanian (he moved out about six years ago), so I had some incentive to study. Now, the incentive is not so strong; there is no longer any real-life incentive for me to learn Romanian.

It's also nice to wind down and talk about languages. In this case, Romanian, in which somehow I ended up using an "elegant" expression that I guess I can use again: foarte mulṭumesc for "boring" us and lightening the mood! --Kuaichik (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Declaration of Independence

I added an entry about that, at Declaration of independence. Couple of details to check--since there is no article per se on this, just a mention (alas, too brief) in Romanian War of Independence, itself viewed by some as mergeable with Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). I went by the new-style date of May 21 (old-style: May 9), since that's the one mentioned in that article (where the declaration by Kogălniceanu in Parliament is mentioned), but I listed King Carol as the signatory, since he officially signed it, on the next day, May 10 old style (the national holiday for many years after, but then again, we don't have a specific page for National Day of Romania). But now we have a bit of a contradiction here: logically, it should be either May 21--Mr K, or May 22--King C (though no one knows those dates by the new style, but that's another story). Any ideas how to get out this jam? Thanks. — Turgidson (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Job hunting at Unibuc

Getting back to the Barbu/Barbilian thread, how do you like this story on how he got a job at U.B., way back when? I bet you a nickel to a donut that something like this could not happen nowadays—no way, José! At any rate, have a happy 2008. — Turgidson (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more carefully at all 4 articles involved in this story (Gheorghe Vrânceanu, Miron Nicolescu, Grigore Moisil, and Dan Barbilian), I see that they were hired at U.B. in 1938, 1940, 1941, and 1942, respectively. (I should have known, since I worked on all 4 articles, but I'd forgotten the exact dates). So it looks now to me that the story from the MacTutor archive is not quite right -- probably true in rough outline, but embellished to make it sound better. Most likely, seems to me, the time frame got compressed: the position must have opened in 1938, GV got it, then GM appealed (probably not in 1941, as they say at MacTutor, but in 1938/39?), so they gave the positions in order to the other 3 guys, as the positions became available over the next few years, with our friend B/B bringing up the rear. Now, this is just my speculation, of course, but this sounds much more like the modus operandi of Academia—it couldn't have changed that much in the past 65-70 years! Finally, note that GV and MN were at U. Cernăuţi, and GM at U. Iaşi before coming down to Bucharest, but the B/B article does not say what he was doing beforehand — I assume he was mostly hanging around Gambrinus, writing poetry or something :), but I'm not sure. But it makes some sense to me that he would need some "pull" from GM to get the prof position at U.B. (was he even an Asst. Prof. somewhere beforehand?), whereas for the other two guys (pretty big shots, let me tell ya), I kind of think they simply did it by themselves. At any rate, that's about where I am right now with all this, I'll try to dig out some more stuff to clarify all these stories, and set them straight (though it's probably not so easy). If you happen to know of some sources that may be helpful with this, I'd appreciate. Turgidson (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email

hi there, check your wikimail. something strange is afoot in Romanian corners of the Wiki. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romania Help

Hi - I'm working on a split of Category:Communes and villages in Romania because someone made a lot of stubs. I based some edits on previously created categories for communes, but I am not so sure that make sense now that I've looked at it more deeply. Do you think it would be better to make categories for communes, for localities, or for communes and villages? There are all three types in the category. Whatever is best, it should be done in a uniform way. I know I made a lot of edits already, but if you (and Romania wikiproject) think something else is best, don't worry -- I'm willing to change it all back. Looking forward to your opinion. Aelfthrytha (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi there friend !

I want to show you some article www.ziare.ro/articol.php?id=1195855382

this is only a sample, if you want more about this subject you only have to ask. Regards ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianzax (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back?

Things are kind of getting crazy around here—starting to feel like this guy here. Perhaps we need an article on Bălăceanca—does that place exist, or is it just a myth? Turgidson (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it one step at a time, no hurry (Mother Nature can play games when one least expects them!). And yes, that redlinks fan (who takes about 10 edits to create one) is just one of the holes in the dike one tries to plug. I think I'll go watch once again this movie; was it shot here? Turgidson (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

urgent!

Check your wikimail as soon as you read this message. A very serious and urgent matter has just revealed itself and I need your input. K. Lásztocska^talk 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply, and I eagerly await your full response. I'm scared sick about this.

BTW, isn't "Foucault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco? If so, count this as the fourth time in as many weeks I've been urged to read his novels...may just have to get around to that one of these days... :) K. Lásztocska^talk 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try The Name of the Rose first, I think it's much better. Foucault's Pendulum starts great, full of promise, but then it slowly drifts and meanders, till it loses its way. Still worth reading, but the first one is the real masterpiece, I'd say. Turgidson (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I would be glad if anyone could explain to me Baudolino (oh, there's an article...) -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, I just had another thought and emailed you again. :) K. Lásztocska^talk 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm taking it quite seriously, don't get me wrong. I just still can't quite figure out what we should do beyond the emails I mentioned. (btw, regarding my other idea, you probably know much better than I what groups might exist that should be contacted...and I couldn't contact them anyway, not speaking the language...) K. Lásztocska^talk 00:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...right, good point. I make things too complicated sometimes...K. Lásztocska^talk 02:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping

Welcome back. A few matters to greet you with:

1. Is this this?
2. Is this new title correct, and the title of this new page?
3. Some arguably strange happenings on President of Romania and especially Template:Heads of State of Romania - I hope you agree the version listing everyone is a bit absurd; even putting Văcăroiu, and Băsescu twice, strikes me as a bit silly. Biruitorul (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thank you for the reply. Indeed, the troublemakers are proliferating. See Ploieşti - first of all, the image gallery (!), and second, passages like this one: "The lack of motorways and well-built roads in Romania makes transport a challenge, but the situation will change. Rather slowly until now, with only one undergoing motorway and another one ready to start, hopefully faster in the near future, under the scrutiny of the EU, the motorway infrastructure will improve substantially over the next years. Why is this important for housing? Being next to a busy road will have a negative impact on the interest for a property, but being in the middle of nowhere does not make wonders for the price tag of a house, particularly for working couples. ... Therefore, buying land in the vicinity of soon-to-start major road developments, either for housing or for industrial projects, is likely to be a very good investment." Again: ! -- Biruitorul (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Greenrico09 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? K. Lásztocska^talk 04:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts as to whether this warning is legitimate. See my first comment here. How can Greenrico09 warn you, Dahn, when he just declared himself an admin just a few hours ago and joined Wikipedia only yesterday?! --Kuaichik (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmygah...this place is getting too damn WEIRD. Fake admins, rabid fanatics, blackmail, sockpuppets....*head explodes*. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry much about the fake admin thing: looky here, he just plays with the tools of the trade, but they don't have any power. I don't really understand how all this works (and I'm not really that much interested at finding out, except on a techie level), but why let newbies play with matches like that? At any rate, what's all this about? The fairy moon? The Curse of Turan extended by osmosis? A katadesmos? Strigoi and vârcolaci? Quick, where is the garlic? Turgidson (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess, Bonny? -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Can't be. May Professor Moriarty? Turgidson (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could squeeze in an "Evidently, my dear Watson", but the fact is I'm clueless. The real mystery here is why the joker hasn't yet been banned (and no, I don't mean "blocked"). Dahn (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Adrianzax, it's because I've been trying to ban him, but at the same time I have work to do in RL. So I'm trying to balance both efforts at the same time. --Kuaichik (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be something, but I was actually referring to the guy who left me the above "warning". Btw: sorry for not yet answering your earlier posts - it seems that as soon as I got back from my relative isolation, I walked straight into this mayhem. Dahn (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: When will they learn to love me in El Salvador? :) Dahn (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. The newbie-made-admin? Are you sure you want him banned? I hope what I'm about to say isn't just plain dumb, but this is all I can make of the situation right now: calm down, he's just a new guy; no need to bite his head off. He probably just doesn't know what he's doing. What I wonder is how on Earth he got those tools in the first place, and who could have possibly given them to him! And don't worry, I'm sure the salvadoreños love you as you are ;-) --Kuaichik (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wondering s'all :). It's not like I want him banned or have lost my temper, but it looks quite clear to me that when one goes around impersonating an admin he's asking for it. In fact, I wonder if that isn't perchance how this story is going to end. And, as far as I can see, it's not like he has those powers: the guy is just pretending he has them, and for some incomprehensible reason they let him keep pretending. I mean, come on! Dahn (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not lose our temper, isn't anyone allowed to leave warning templates? (like this one: Template:uw-vandalism4) I left some before for some obvious trolls, I didn't have the impression that you need to be admin to do it... -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, I did not actually lose my temper, and I'm not intrigued by the template itself - or rather, what intrigues me about the template is that it advertises some disruptive editing from my part (reverting to a version that at least did not have spelling errors, and that was the result of seeming consensus), that it is formulated as a "last warning" with no preceding warnings, and that it coincided with page protection. What leaves me scratching my head till it's raw and bleeding is how this guy can go around impersonating an admin, especially seeing that he is himself responsible for some rather severe disruption in the process. Dahn (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason the warning is there is that Adrianzax reported you to Greenrico, whom he (for obvious reasons) mistook for an admin, during the most recent battle on Romanians. Greenrico, apparently not knowing much about the nuances of the subject at hand, took him at his word and assumed you were a vandal. I too am mystified how he can get away with impersonating an admin though...K. Lásztocska^talk 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Now, this MO rings a bell. Who remembers this gentleman here? Dahn (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why would Bonny impersonate a 15-year-old from El Salvador?? The Bonaparte heyday was before my time but I've seen enough of his sockpuppets to get a general feel for him, and my Bonny-radar is definitely NOT going off now. Or are we saying Adrianzax is Bonny? (Again, no blip on the radar. But maybe he's getting better at disguising himself?) K. Lásztocska^talk 04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that he did spend months on end editing small in Israel-related articles and passing himself as a Jew (well, that last one is not actually a first, I guess - the man thinks he has the perfect "cover" to introduce any sort of nationalist rant by producing this disclaimer, which is actually sad even if his claim were true) just so that he could "warn" me, "mediate a dispute" and then rant all over the place that I am a vandal, El Salvador doesn't seem that far-fetched. With Mr. Zax, I would say it's more on the meatpuppet side, and there may be an even more disturbing connection there if I'm allowed to put two and two together. Dahn (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so I might be right after all (I had the same flashback about HIZKIAH, and the language used in the user page is very similar to our puppeteer). And Dahn, I did't know about other instance of impersonating an admin, I just mentioned that anybody is allowed to add that template as far as I can tell from that Recent Changes Patroller page.-- AdrianTM (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with that, though, it has to be said, most other admins will simply laugh off a first and only "last warning", handed by a noob under the circumstances. I tend to delete such warnings on my page as soon as I notice them, because they are mainly a way of tarnishing a reputation (and false warnings are a form of vandalism, while deleting any warning is interpreted as a sign of you having noticed it etc.). I left tis one here because of the interesting discussion it sparked. In any case: Bonaparte or no Bonaparte, I can't see this guy going too far as an editor, let alone as an admin. Dahn (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clueless on Baker Street, but here's a little pic to inspire y'all in your cogitations. Turgidson (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to coke as Mr. Holmes... :D AdrianTM (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It just occurs to me that, since KL plays a classical instrument, we're sorted as far as to who's who in that scenario (though I'm sure she's way better than Sherlock). Dahn (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just any instrument, the violin! I certainly hope I'm better than Sherlock...if not, I'm wasting my conservatory tuition...K. Lásztocska^talk 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of that old Russian joke: Holmes and Watson went camping. After they went to bed, in the middle of the night Holmes wakes his friend up and asks: "Tell me, Watson, what does this starry sky tell you?" -- "It tells me that the weather is going to be nice in the morning" -- "And to me it tells that someone has stolen our bloody tent!". Turgidson (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Russian joke is more appropriate: "Stirlitz opened a door. The lights went on. Stirlitz closed the door. The lights went out. Stirlitz opened the door again. The light went back on. Stirlitz closed the door. The light went out again. "It's a fridge," concluded Stirlitz." (only that in this case it's Bonny not a fridge... patterns my friends...) AdrianTM (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old it may be, but I still giggled. Did you happen to see that Treehouse of Horror Simpsons episode where Lisa is Sherlock and Bart is the [verbatim] "easily amazed" Dr. Watson (where the Scotland Yard's official motto is "What's all this then?", and where they arrest a Peter Pan whose one line is "I shall never grow old" - to which the Victorian Chief Wiggum replies "In jail you will")? It's magnificent. Dahn (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Russian jokes! Hooray! OK, here's my favorite: there comes a knock at the door, and Shapoklyak answers. She sees King Kong standing in front of her. "Is Krokodil Gena at home?" asks King Kong. "Umm...no, sorry, he's not here," says Shapoklyak. "OK," says the big hairy brute. "When he gets back, tell him Cheburashka stopped by to say hello--just got done with army duty, you know!"

Not that it has any bearing on the situation at hand. I just like that joke. On a serious note, maybe some checkusers are warranted here? I didn't ever have any contact with HIZKIAH, so I forgot that about the whole Jew-impersonation creepy bit... K. Lásztocska^talk 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Krokodil Gena story in Romanian (Crocodilul Ghenea şi alte povestiri), and I wouldn't have thought anyone outside of Russia other than a bunch of Romanian youngsters remembered him. Say what you want about the Soviets, but some of their children's stories were beautiful.

Checkuser? Perhaps, but it would be quite hard to formulate the grounds (in these cases, it may be better to have an admin well-acquainted with Bonnie looking directly into this). I've watchlisted the Bonnie-related checkuser page (his one true accomplishment) as a shortcut to file the ones I spot, but there are other things I would rather do at the moment (before logging off) - one of which is chatting with you guys. Dahn (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only in this past few months I became acquainted with Cheburashka et. al.--I had to take Russian last semester for an easy credit and one of the first things we did in class was watch the Cheburashka cartoons. :) Consider me hooked! I didn't know he'd made it to Romania though! K. Lásztocska^talk 06:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the cartoons, alas. I only have the illustrator's take on the characters to get me going. I have serious problems with finding out who was who from Russian to Romanian (I forget what exactly they called Cheburashka, but I think it was something like Trampampam or Hodoronc-tronc). It was a package deal with some other stories: something about a tractor called Tr-tr-mitea and about the postman Cuptorin. Maybe I'll reunite with that book one day and add something to the respective articles on names the characters had in the Romanian edition. (It would be interesting to see if Bulgarians and East Germans and, hey, Hungarians could do the same...) Dahn (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a checkuser would be successful since this is only a hunch, we don't have enough proof. As for hunches, I will keep an eye on this new guy who seems obsessed with Romanian economic issues (just like youknowwho) AdrianTM (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the new guy is definitely him. Dahn (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Writer reverts

Hi,

The default size is still included in the rewrite; I'm sure this could be fixed if you could give an example of a broken article. It's difficult to fix issues like this without feedback, because sandbox edits can only test so far. Can you give an example of an article where the infobox "looks like crap" in the most recent revision, so that it can be corrected? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mircea Eliade

I brought up a rather important concern on the talk page for Mircea Eliade. Any input would be appreciated. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlach language in Serbia

Where do you see a POV here?? --Olahus (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even the serbian wikipedia says about the so-called "Vlaški jezik": Vlaški jezik je popularni srpski naziv za arhaične rumunske dijalekte kojim.

It seems that your real worry is not to hurt the feelings of some serbian nationalists here.--Olahus (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

excuses, excuses....

;-) Actually the situation seems to have calmed down for now, at least there have been no new developments. The same, unfortunately, can be said for my wiki-productivity...K. Lásztocska^talk 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliade

Thanks for doing all this research! I'll look over it, but I can't promise to get back to you right away. By the way, I again have the Politics of Myth book I told you about, so I'll be adding stuff from there in hopefully not too long. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Mungiu-Pippidi

Please see my revert here and see if it was correct. - Francis Tyers · 12:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that a gentleman has aired his grievances on the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics

Ploiești, Iași-Chișinău Offensive and now this - are we at the edge of a precipice? Or can we pull back from the brink? S-comma and t-comma are correct, no doubt, but I'd rather not get into mass page moves, if you know what I mean, and now we have two standards, which is also damaging. I hope we can find a solution. Biruitorul (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I intervene (somehow Dahn's page remained in my watch list), I don't see a problem with this move since this seems to be the standard in Romanian, the other one is not a "standard", it's probably acceptable for the reason that's not really noticeable, but it's not the official standard as far as I understand. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, aside from the fact that only the Acadmy uses the official version, and aside from the fact that many users will not be able to see the new diacritic as anything other than a square (unless we turn it to unicode in every single place), and aside from the fact that English wikipedia would become more Catholic than the Pope (given that not even rowiki uses that character), can you imagine changing the gazillion instances where the latter shows up, just for the sake of changing it? If this was really necessary (and it isn't!), I have to ask: why the hell didn't people start doing it back when there where two articles on Romania, and not several thousands?!

It's these nonsensical moves which make me grow really disenchanted with wikipedia, and in particular with Romanian-related wikipedia patterns. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right then I didn't know that it doesn't show on some computers, on my it looks OK even though I don't think I can type them, let's see: ţş, yep. --AdrianTM (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough (even if I do say so myself), I never use my keyboard to type any diacritic (I have no diacritic installed on my default keyboard, and use the shortcut keys only in various individual programs). What I do here is click the tiny icons at the bottom of the editing window. Dahn (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I never paid attention to those tiny icons on the bottom of the editing window, that's a good tip for blind persons like me. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't intend to change my keyboard layout in order to side with the majority. There are free fonts and free operating systems that support the standard orthography and if people have trouble they can install them. If you want to revert me go ahead. My objection is not on visual grounds, but on character encoding grounds. There are many other barbarities possible with character encoding, I don't support them either. - Francis Tyers · 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cross-over could be done rather trivially with a bot. The fact that the correct encoding is not being used devalues Wikipedia as a resource. Converting from ș → s<turk> is easy, because ș is not found in any other languages, s<turk> → ș is harder. I don't think ș is going to go away, and if people want to keep changing ș → s<turk> then fine, but it is up to them. Anyone who uses GNU/Linux is welcome to ask me for help in configuring their system to use the correct characters. - Francis Tyers · 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the part about seeping into other languages. - Francis Tyers · 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can be done in an automatic manner and I'd hazard the accuracy to be approximately 90% if we use a wordlist and only do replacements based on known words (in Romanian) -- I have personally a wordlist of around 500,000 lexical forms, but this could be expanded using the flexonline database. It will need to be done at some point anyway. - Francis Tyers · 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael the Brave

Hi Dahn, I just overhauled this article and would like to put it on A-class review as soon as posible. However any additions or copyedit (especially) would be more than welcome. Just take a look when you have some time... Thanks and best regards, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 699: / Line 699: @@
 ::::::This can be done in an automatic manner and I'd hazard the accuracy to be approximately 90% if we use a wordlist and only do replacements based on known words (in Romanian) -- I have personally a wordlist of around 500,000 lexical forms, but this could be expanded using the flexonline database. It will need to be done at some point anyway. - [[User:f-m-t|Francis Tyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
+== [[Michael the Brave]] ==
+Hi Dahn, I just overhauled this article and would like to put it on A-class review as soon as posible. However any additions or copyedit (especially) would be more than welcome. Just take a look when you have some time... Thanks and best regards, --[[User:Eurocopter tigre|Eurocopter tigre]] ([[User talk:Eurocopter tigre|talk]]) 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)