User talk:Turgidson

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Turgidson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Simonkoldyk 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Whitehead_Henry_3.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Whitehead_Henry_3.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A general issue

Hi. Mr. Lupu makes bases his vision on ill-constructed arguments and untenable assumptions. I genuinely enjoy working with you, and I consider you a good contributor, but I fear I am also adamant on the issue of the Holocaust in Romania (and, of course, elsewhere). I consider that sort of information highly improper, and I think the general principles of wikipedia, as well as the majority of contributors, will agree with me. I personally am saddened if that article may in fact reflect your own opinions, and will continue to enjoy collaborating with you only to the measure where you do not promote any of them into future articles. Dahn 15:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read that article carefully, just a few paragraphs related to the Nicholschi stuff. I will have to read it all to form a considerate opinion, and then I will reply. In the meantime, please do not jump to conclusions. Thanks. Turgidson 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, upon skimming through the paper in question, I can see now what the problem is. I assumed the article is of academic quality, since it was presented at an international conference, [1], and the author himself is an academic. But I must confess I'm not familiar with the milieu of historical research. I guess one must be more careful when using sources from there than with the scientific milieu, with which I'm more familiar. At any rate, thanks again for drawing my attention to this issue -- it's been educational. Turgidson 15:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry myself for assuming it reflected you opinion. I myself had glanced through it previously, and failed to note the problem (I was not previously familiar with the scandal involving Corvin, and I think I was either using a highlighted HTML version or simply looking for the parts you had referenced, without checking out the rest; I re-read it because the innocent title stuck with me, and was looking to see if and how it might have helped elsewhere). Dahn 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A format suggestion

I have just noticed on your user page that you linked to categories by their address (Alumni by university in US, Faculty by university in US). I have a suggestion to make: consider using

:Category

as in [[:Category:Romanian politicians]] (it transforms itself into a link - Category:Romanian politicians) Dahn 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Alexandru Nicolschi , was selected for DYK!

On January 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexandru Nicolschi , 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Turgidson 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping

Romanian anti-communist resistance movement --Vintila Barbu 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Turgidson 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition

I see you've added a number of links to participants, but you've also included some redlinks. Were you intending to write articles on them; did you (or Wikipedia) misspell the name; did you intentionally create redlinks, or am I missing some other plausible option. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Going through the list, I fixed various links, and added new ones to existing articles. But I also noted some glaring omissions, so I put some redlinks, as a marker (or reminder if you wish) that one should probably have articles about those people. Now, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (been at it for about a month and a half), so I'm not sure this is the correct procedure. I'm sort of thinking of adding articles on those people, but I'm not sure yet. So what's the right procedure in such a case? Turgidson 16:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You will excuse me for intervening (it is merely that I have your page on my watchlist, since you seemed to want to reply here), but I feel I should tell Arthur Rubin that there is nothing wrong in creating redlinks, and there is no need for them to be deleted or anything. From what I have noticed, some users have misinterpreted a vague (and new?) guideline, and they have probably never found the immense use that redlinks have in editing. One is not supposed to add relevant information only when available, and it is rather absurd to assume that wikipedia has covered all things essential and all redlinks are "trivial" until proven relevant. IMO, you did a great job, Turgidson, and there is no rule you have broken. Dahn 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Dahn. Actually, I've been wondering for a while what to do about these redlinks. I've seen them abused -- e.g., people ranmdomly putting wikilinks around any name that appears in an article. So I've been pretty careful not to do that, except in very select situations, where I really feel that the person in question deserves an article -- as a way of "flagging" things. But the above inquiry from Arthur Rubin made me nervous about my assumption, so I'd still like to hear his opinion, and possibly more about the subject, which seems to be of some importance, at least to me. Thanks again to both. Turgidson 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating redlinks in an inherently incomplete list (such as, for example, January 1) is questionable at best, and in violation of the instructions of those pages, anyway. However, even in a potentially complete list, such as this one, because of possible name conflicts, (and the fact that most people who create an article don't check the "what links here" page to see if anyone else is referring to it), I think that, unless someone is clearly notable, one shouldn't create a redlink to his name. If you're willing to monitor the article to make sure that the links are to the correct person, I have no objection to their inclusion, but I think that monitoring should be a real requirement for the creation of redlinks to persons' names. It's not in the Wikipedia guidelines, but it could harm the article to have redlinks mysteriously become blue by pointing to a different person's article.

It should be pointed out that my first edits to Wikipedia, as an anon, were correcting my name as it appeared in the article; IIRC, there were 3 "Arthur L. Rubin"'s and 1 "Arthur Rubin", which were all me. It should also be pointed out that I did not state that you were violating some rule, although I can see the implication. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, I will take them into due consideration. My feeling right now is that this whole thing is debatable. I would like to hear more opinions and/or feedback before solidifying my own opinion on the matter. In the meantime, as before, I will be very cautious in adding a redlink, and use the procedure only sparingly. Also, if you feel that any of the added redlinks on the Putnam page is not valid, please feel free to delete it (some were there before, and some of the previous redlinks I fixed, by redirecting them to the correct pages). And, oh, by the way, congratulations on having won the Putnam four times -- that 's quite a feat! Turgidson 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A follow-up -- one of those redlinks is gone: I created a stub for Roger Howe. Turgidson 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I think tend to agree more with Dahn than with Arthur Rubin on the potential usefulness of redlinks, at least when used judiciously. As a concrete example, in creating the stub for Roger Howe, I felt the need to put a link to his advisor, Calvin Cooper Moore [2]. I think this is a justified way to flag the need for a new page. One more example. In editing the page for Masaki Kashiwara, I realized he was a member of the French Academy of Sciences. I hesitated about creating a new category, but then, in looking for it, I realized there were already two "redlinks" to this category, so I went ahead and started it, at Category:Members of the French Academy of Sciences. Turgidson 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My thoughts exactly: it is rather like the magician trick where, if you pull the sheet away, all objects remain in their place (whereas removing redlinks is usually like taking all those objects, placing them aside, pulling the cloth away, then placing all objects in their original positions). As for redlinks with questioned usefulness: adding them is no different from adding irrelevant links or unwikified idiocies to any text. That is to say that nobody can prevent anyone from adding crap, and that the very same system of supervision and peer review will apply to all irrelevant additions (and, in case it does not apply, it simply means that no one is in the forest to listen to falling trees). Dahn 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrei Şerban

Hi. Truly great work on that article. I had just discovered it before noon, and watchlisted it for later cleanup; in the evening, it's spotless! Dahn 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The subject deserves it -- I think he's a great director. Actually, it's rather amazing in hindsight that he did not rate an article (btw, there is none on ro.wiki!) I need to put this aside for a while, and get back to work on non-wiki stuff. But I still think the article could use quite a lot of improvements. Eg, a photograph (but it's almost impossible to find one that passes muster with wiki!), references in the text (but I'm not sure how best to organize that, I still need to learn what's the best way to do it, especially when the sources are so diverse), and perhaps some bulleted lists of plays directed, etc. So much to do, so little time.... Turgidson 21:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help in the future (I'll work with whatever system of references you decide to use). Dahn 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Birthdays

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays. R.e.b. 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- I didn't know about the policy, but now that you pointed it out to me, I understand where it comes from. Also, I think I know what prompted this message, so I reverted the change in question. If there is anything else that needs to be done, please let me know (or simply go ahead and change it). Best, Turgidson 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Q: University of Iaşi

Hi. I just noticed your contribution to the list. I want to ask you: should we also include faculty who were alumni on the alumni list? I could go either way, but let me know what you think. Dahn 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know. For example, I made a comment about this issue at the University of Leiden talk page -- Ideally, more opinions should come into play, before settling on a solution. In the meantime, I would reiterate my suggestion elsewhere: separate categories with faculty and alumni are needed for major Universities such as the one from Iaşi. Once those are in place, and respective links are established, the task would be easier, and more systematic. Makes sense? Turgidson 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon further thought, yes, it seems logical to include people who were both alumni and faculty on both lists. I've seen it done elsewhere, come to think of it -- at Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, etc. (At Cambridge and Oxford, though, it's a bit different, and as for the University of Paris, it's very confusing, I find.) At any rate, take Dimitrie Gusti as a concrete example: he belongs to both lists, right? By the way George Pruteanu is listed as faculty, but I could not see that mentioned explicitly in the article (only in the Categories). If such list of faculty and/or alumni is to be done well, one should double-check the info, and make sure it's explicitly mentioned in the article about the respective person, I'd say. Turgidson 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree with your points, but I want to point out that listing is generally easier before categorizing (you end up with just one place from which to select cat entries, and red links stay there as reminders). My main reason for asking was so that I know if I should contribute to both (although it looks like you've currently covered most or even all such entries). About Pruteanu: yes, you're right; I'll remove him until further notice. Dahn 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I bit the bullett and started those 2 categories. I wouldn't do this for each and every University in Romania, but say, for Bucharest and Iasi (already done) and Cluj, plus a few others, I think it's worth it. By the way, I made a comment in this general area a while ago Talk:Dobruja#Byzantines_and_Bulgarians, but it surely was the wrong forum to address the issue. Is there a better venue to possibly start such a discussion? Turgidson 19:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We agree (including on the "not for each and every" issue). It is an interesting point you raise on the Dobruja page, but I think you should look at it from another perspective. As it is, info on natives and culture goes into articles on constituent cities of the region (let's face it, Tulcea County is not much to contemporary culture besides the city of Tulcea); I also think that is where readers expect it to be, and, given the centrist patterns of Romanian administrative geography, if we do not establish a level on which to expand the issue, we would risk duplicating the exact same info on concentric pages (region, county, city). Another thing to consider is that post-1918 cultural references shy away from any mentions of regions (which has left some consequences we would not be able to avoid - such as it becoming a tad ridiculous to refer to the contemporary culture of Wallachia, which is probably not the case of Dobruja or Transylvania). I would add a section on culture for all regions, but I would center it on historical tradition, ethnography, speech patterns et al, and less on universities and theaters (which I could detail in articles on respective cities). As to lists and categories for natives, in a previous discussion with Bogdan and Biruitorul, I raised the issue of creating a "tree" from cities to regions, through counties (eventually, a "List of natives of Dobruja" would be merely a collection of lists to natives of counties; the same for categories, mutatis mutandis). Dahn 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tulcea: Well, OK, but still, there is at least someone born there that I heard of: Grigore Moisil. Dobruja (well, I still think of it as Dobrogea): the point I was trying to make there was that the discussion was too much about historical minutiae (prompted I assume by various ethnic grudges, or whatnot), instead of whatever one could say its contributions to the wider world are in the here and now (or at least, in the past century or so). Which brought me to the fact that no University from that region is even mentioned -- deafening silence, as they say. Universities: I'm thinking of a list -- nothing complicated, to start with. I found one in that ref mentioned there, with some classification scheme which makes some sense. Tree of knowledge, with concentric circles and all the rest: that sounds too ambitious for me! That would be great for an encyclopedia, but it sounds like a year-long project to me, at the very least. Is there enough manpower (and/or willpower) for that? Turgidson 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tulcea: what I actually meant was that Tulcea County is not much beyond Tulcea City (where Moisil is from). Dobruja: it is best if we leave most information about it to the realm of history (although this goes into far too many details, and, last time I checked, needed serious copyediting for NPOV); we could establish a culture section, but info there ought to be mostly ethnographic and ethnocultural etc. (which is unlikely to feature in other articles, and which would be a nice and valuable addition, as well as consistent with the fact that, next to history, most present-day references are on ethnography); I would leave other info to be dealt with in articles on cities (consider that a mention about Ovidius Uni is likely to be made in the article on Constanţa, and that natives are about to be detailed there; in general, I avoid listing natives in articles on regions, unless the lists prove to be very short - otherwise, we have to either pointlessly drag a text that could be neatly folded into detailed sections on a tighter geographic level, or select just a few names for the overall list, which strikes me as POV - as a provisional solution in the Transylvania article, where Romanians and Hungarians were engaged in an idiotic battle over how many names of each community should be included, I simply moved it to List of Transylvanians,which has room to grow and can be eventually folded into county sections). Universities: I'm not sure I know what you mean. Tree of natives: it is feasible,perhaps not in one go (it's just that it is boring); hell, if Bogdan has done so much to fill Category:People from Bucharest, everything is possible :). We are currently pretty ok on the city level, and, if it weren't for inane debates such as the ones on Talk:List of people from Iaşi, I'd have more interest in sorting them out. Dahn 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Universities: there is one here, List of universities in Romania, but it's (a) far from complete, (b) more redlinks than bluelinks, (c) gives no sense of quality involved. I guess (a) and (b) can be fixed (with a lot of work for (b)), but (c) would surely be controversial. Still, methodology to do such rankings in a more-or-less objective fashion is being developed, see eg [3]. Could any of that info be used in wikipedia? Turgidson 20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good points. What I would do to reflect methodology is to fit them in a table in some [other] objective order (alphabet, city, etc), and list next to each other x rank awarded on y scale. Does this sound like a good idea? Dahn 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me. Couple of questions, though: would one start from the existing list on wiki, or from the one on ad-astra? I'd say the union of the two, just to make sure -- with the ones not ranked, well, not ranked (and, most likely, but not necessarily, redlinked). Second, is there a copyright issue here (in terms of using the info from that site)? I'd say no (looks public domain to me), but I'm not an expert at that... Turgidson 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I would alphabetize (order them irrespective of the ranking, and include the ranking for reference, with an _ or something for those not ranked). I'm don't know much about copyrights, but it looks like the content is freely mirrored, and that all you need is to link to the source. Dahn 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is convincing. I may try to do this at some point, but it will be rather time-consuming, so I would hate to spend the time and effort, only to have someone else duplicate it. I'm not sure what the best procedure is in such a case: should one start a stub, or should one work in a sandbox, or what? Also, btw, I put some somewhat-related comments in the Romania talk page, which were prompted in part by this discussion. Turgidson 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the sandbox. About the Romanians article: I am slowly but surely losing interest in that article; it has been hijacked by solicists and people with POVs, and there is little info in there that actually connects with the topic of the article (the History section, besides being a rant of cliches, actually relates to Romania and duplicates content; the format is chaotic; the overall feel is embarrassing). Nevertheless, the info you want to add, although it allows me to presume that you have an interesting meritocratic ideal, may be judged not to be of encyclopedic value (it may IMO, but the main problem I see is that it is subject to rapid change, more so than the overall numbers - think about Romanians in Italy and Spain, where demographics are likely to go berserk every now and then). Dahn 21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will try the sanbox -- haven't tried it yet. As for the Romania talk page, I've tried to get the discussion back to something hopefully more meaningful. If it doesn't work, oh well. And, as for the fact that those numbers are fleeeting -- yes, good point. One should focus on longer-term trends, not on snapshots, at least in the context of an encyclopedia. But still, one should also take into account what's "relevant"--it's a balancing act. The fact that Romania produces an educated class of people, a significant proportion of which chooses to go elsewhere, is significant, I think. Maybe a proper place to describe the situation, and put it in a wider context, would be at Romanian Education System, which is in rather poor shape right now, I think (though Healthcare in Romania is even in worse shape). Turgidson 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (On the issue of the "Education System" article, I remember walking by it, noticing the fact that the title broke wikipedia rules on capitalizations, glancing through it for 5 seconds, my eye starting twitching, and ultimately giving up. If you say the "Healthcare" one is worse, I can't even convince myself to click the link.) Dahn 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having some trouble with the alumni category: looks like I also created a separate page (not a category) by mistake. Is there a way to delete it? Turgidson 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Done (there were other ways to deal with it, but redirect struck me as the best one to use). Dahn 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Multi-tasking is too confusing, sometimes.  :) Turgidson 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep :). It has happened to all of us at some point or another. Dahn 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your 2 cents

Hi again. I recently bumped into this monument. It seems that it is connected to what we were talking about, and thus at the core of your interests. The article is pretty much useless as it is, a mess edit-wise, and its POV value is through the roof. Do you think it is worth keeping it at all, or do we merge it with something? Dahn 16:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Omigosh! This is quite a mess. Maybe one can extract some useful info from it, and merge it with something existing, like Romanian Education System, whcih is not much better, but at least has some nice pics. Turgidson 16:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Castelseprio

Thanks for help at Castelseprio. The other version supported by the other user was truly awful. I started to wonder if he had even opened a serious encyclopedia in his life... Good work. --Attilios 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome -- any time. Turgidson 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kalanidhi Maran

I added some references to Kalanidhi Maran, which I think demonstrate notability. --Eastmain 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Socor

You wrote: "if one wants to engage in a polemic about IASPS, I think that should be done in a separate article, not here."[4] I wholly agree with you, and that has always been my principle in other articles. In this case, however, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies is red-lined which is why I added descriptive words afterwards. In light of your concerns, I have now modified this to a version closer to NPOV.[5] When IASPS gets it own stub, let us move the qualifiers and description there. I hope that this addresses your concern and your npov-tag issue. Please note: I may not respond right away, because I am mainly on a wikibreak. Mauco 13:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing the article about Birlic. Mulţumesc. --Roamataa 09:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting my point in Alexandru Nicolschi article, in Securitate article some people want to keep mentioning that he was Romanian, I don't see how could that be non-POVish taking into considerations that:

1. He was not born in Romania, he was born in imperial Russia.
2. He was Jew at least from father side.
3. He had Soviet citizenship at the time he entered Romania, and he entered Romania with forged acts to spy against Romania.

If he later on got Romanian citizenship that's something of no consequence and probably not worthy to be mentioned in the context of "who was actually a Romanian born in Bessarabia" which is misleading. -- AdrianTM 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to say, since I haven't edited the page on the Securitate, just the one on Alexandru Nicolschi. I remember though being confronted with a similar question when starting the page for Nicholschi, sometimes in late December. I used at the time the info coming from the Sighet Museum ("The position of Director of D.G.S.P. was entrusted to Gheorghe Pintilie (Pantelei Bodnarenko, of Ukrainian origin), who held the rank of General-Lieutenant, while two other Soviet agents were named Deputy Directors, Alexandru Nicolschi (Boris Grünberg, NKVD officer since 1940, from Basarabia) and Vladimir Mazuru (Ukrainian, born in Northern Bukovina) who received the rank of Major General"), but left out the details about ethnic origin, etc. In the present version of the article, this still is the case. Now, how would this apply to the other page you mention, I'm not quite sure, but the facts you lay out seem well established, and accepted by all editors (yes?). So perhaps it's "just" a matter of striking the right balance between saying too little, and dwelling too much on this or that. I know it's easier said than done, but I hope it can be worked out. Turgidson 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Turgidson thanks for supporting keeping the article Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation. I am also partial to Hanson - I love his explanation of how infantry can withstand cavalry, and his evolution of Roman Legions to Frankish levies. I also loved his analysis of how the Umayyads were able to destroy 2 giant empires on three continents in less than 100 years before Martel put a stop to them, along with the Bzyantines. (and you are right on more battles needing inclusion, especially Lepanto!) I think this article, which I did not write, needs a lot of work, but that the effort to end it is because of POV issues rather than a legitimate need for deletion. Shoot, trying to wrap it into European history would just leave that even longer! old windy bear 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure -- no problemo! I'm here to help: still kind of new, and feeling my way around. Although I haven't touched this subject (yet), the discussion about "Macrohistorical battles" piqued my curiosity. It's the first time I heard the word, but after seeing the Hanson mention, I remembered reading a nice article by him on this very subject, and that's what clinched it for me. By the way, and in another vein -- another article of Hanson that stuck in my mind was the one about Xenophon's Anabasis. What a gripping story! Turgidson 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanson was also the kicker for me, ironically. I have his book Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power plus a number of his articles. If you have not read the book, you should, because you will love it! He uses the article on Tours/Poitiers to explain why Frankish infantry was able to stop Islamic cavalry, and the evolution of the infantry in the west from the Greek Hopolites to the Roman Legions, to the Frankish freedman levies. It is fascinating! old windy bear 12:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Löwenbräu & Co.

Living for the most time in Munich, I think I know what a good beer means. However, I wouldn't be that arrogant not to enjoy ABA whenever circumstances demand it. --Vintila Barbu 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Haven't tasted Löwenbräu lately -- the version available at the corner store is just too watery, and tastes like the tin can in which it is sold. But maybe it tastes better in München, when served fresh from a keg at the Hofbräuhaus? The beer of the Schwarzwald is not bad, but again, too thin after one becomes familiar with British-style beers such as Stout, Porter, or India Pale Ale, where one can actually taste the hops. Of course, Belgian beer (for example, Leffe) is also very interesting, and full of tradition. But, when it comes to Stella Artois, I actually liked better the one brewed in Cluj -- quite crisp, better mountain water, perhaps? I could go on and on the subject, so I better stop -- or write an article about it! Turgidson 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, next time when you come to München, Bayern or Schwarzwald just let me know on vbarbu@online.de, if possible a couple of days in advance.--Vintilă Barbu 12:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:71_G.sized.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:71_G.sized.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On images

Check this image Image:Valter_Roman.gif. It seems the US "fair use" is applied as a Wiki policy too. For a portrait I think you also should resize to a lower resolution/quality (if it's the case). Daizus 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

However here, such photos are not listed (though there's a section of "publicity photos" but I'm not sure if it covers our case), though "for identification" criterion is present as one. I wonder if the "free use" rationale defends also a "need" to illustrate important people in the recent history. Daizus 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Though you seem quite far from suffering from any form of “authorship syndrome”, I’am taking precautions and asking your opinion about nominating just AdrianTM for having expanded Paul Goma in the last 5 days, knowing that you too have some significant edits there. I hope you don’t get it wrong. --Vintilă Barbu 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead -- he's put in yeoman work on it. I'll be on a wikibreak for a few days. Take care, Turgidson 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oprea

Done: Marius Oprea. Khoikhoi 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Turgidson 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Funnies

Necessary corrections such as this one and this one could easily lead to not entirely unfounded suspicions that Dahn is in fact an idiot :D. My defense is rather shabby, I guess: while in the latter case I was reading Deletant's opinion and it originally seemed that Hungary did not have lustration (which lead me to split the text into "Czechia, Poland... and Hungary", forgetting to the details when I looked closer), the former is just me not having a sense of proportions. Anyway, this was mainly to thank you again for being such a careful editor. Cheers, Dahn 14:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had also seen the 18,000 km² bit, and thought it was quite odd, but I was not 100% sure what the correct unit of measure should apply, so I waited for someone else to catch and fix it. But for the second bit, there were no ifs or buts, so I went ahead. While at it, one comment: good idea to create Category:Romanian Revolution of 1989. I was led to the article about the Proclamation of Timişoara from a different article (on Mad Forest), which also links to this category. Any way to further populate the category? I am not quite sure what the temporal boundaries are -- Timişoara pushes them to March 1990; would, e.g., the Golaniad, from May 1990, still fit into the aftermath of December 1989? Turgidson 15:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting questions. The idea for the cat is actually Joe's (well, to quote Arghezi, I could have maid such a nail, but I didn't think about it). Since, as we stand, I'm not touching the revolution article with a 10-foot pole, I just thought I'd operate an emergency intervention and do the minimum necessary. Also, I can theorize that subarticles from the Revolution one could be created in the future (such as one on the Otopeni Massacre, or one two separate ones for Bucharest and Timişoara - detailed as "main article" from their mother).

The rest is open to scrutiny: I would include both the Mineriad and Golaniad in the cat (or, at least, could see a point in doing so), but I encourage others to take the final decision in this respect. Since we are at it, a subcat for People of the Romanian Revolution of 1989 is called for, but bound to be a headache and battleground. What's your say? Dahn 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Szekely

Sigismund resigned in favor of Andrew Bathory before Michael entered Transylvania. I believe the event referred in that paragraph is the battle of Şelimbăr. I won't modify that paragraph until a 24h interval will ellapse to avoid 3RR. Daizus 05:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you're sure of that, why not, go ahead. I was just going from what I read in the articles on Sigismund Báthory and Michael the Brave, where their alliance is mentioned. This also corresponded to my dim memories of the subject, but I don't have a history book with me to check. My suggestion though would be to first build the case -- perhaps by starting an article on Andrew Báthory and/or adding explanations in the other relevant articles -- so as to avoid any further confusions in the article on the Székely, which for some reason seems kind of hotly contested. Just a thought, please do whatever you think is best. Turgidson 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simion Stoilow, 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.

--Carabinieri 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dimitrie Gerota

On 22 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dimitrie Gerota, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Ward Churchill article

Just wanted to call attention to my addition of a Request for Comment on the Churchill article. Please feel free to add your 2 cents under 'Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute'. Hopefully some additional perspectives on the issue will help resolve our disagreement. Thanks! - N1h1l 13:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Roma minority in Romania

Hey Turgidson,

Please check this out: Roma minority in Romania#Self-proclaimed leaders. I noticed that the section (actually the entire article) needs some serious work. Is there any chance you could try to fix-up that section? I've been trying to cleanup the article, and it's come a long way. Thanks, Khoikhoi 04:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mulţumesc pt dezvoltarea articolului despre istoria Cluj-Napoca. --Roamataa 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: A few things

Hey Turgidson.

• Ok, thanks for your help on that article. I don't know much about Roma communal leadership, but I was thinking, do these anecdotical disputes really have marginal importance? IMO, they don't seem to reflect the actual grassroots organization that the Roma community has. Please tell me what your opinion is on this.
• Yeah, I'm sorry about all that. I speeded the article late at night (because it met CSD G5). Then I went to sleep, and it was only until I got up when I realized the controversy that I had created. Sorry again.
• As for the Soviet occupation of Romania: if a user is being uncivil or making personal attacks, the best thing to do is to remind him/her about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or get another admin to do it, and if all else fails, try WP:AN/I. There used to be a page called WP:PAIN, but it has been deleted. However, I think Biru and Dahn have done a good job at intervening, but if you have any more questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk page.

Cheers,
Khoikhoi 05:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Habent sua fata...fabulae

Since you seem to lend some epitomic significance to the episode of the death of Tănase (…and I agree with this), I may report an amusing story about how news are made:

On 5th February 2003, under the name of my maternal grandfather (Marin Bărbat), I posted here an anecdote about the death of Tănase. About one year later, User: Jmabel, searching for infos for his newly created Constantin Tănase comes across my short story, as he notes here, then, he translates it and makes a section out of it. After several weeks, I accidentally discover Wikipedia and bump into the Constantin Tănase, where I am discovering… my anecdote. I’m posting to Jmabel welcoming this coincidence. (Very interestingly, on the rowiki an account of Tănase’s death reproducing the initial story - in German - was edited already in Nv 2005). Now, here it comes: in January 2007 the article you discovered in Jurnalul Naţional resumes the anecdote in quite identical terms with its German vs. rowiki vs. enwiki versions. Do we have here to do with a case of circular information ? Anyway, the chronology is: German version, rowikiversion, enwiki version, Jurnalul version, all quite identical. Should we ask Paula Mihailov Chiciuc from the Jurnalul, where she has her story from ? (Wouldn't it be tactless ?) Should Wikipedia have contributed to spreading and legitimating the anecdote my grandparetns used to tell ? Funny....--Vintilă Barbu 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, if you heard a similar story about Tănase’s death, this is reassuring me, because initially, as I put in circulation this story, I was astonished to note that nobody seemed to have known it, while I always had supposed that the story was a best-known one. Glad to see that I am not the only one left… As for the telefonul fără fir, it’s already here: in the original version Tănase simply disappears shortly after resuming the show with “eu tic, el tac”. In the rowiki, enwiki and especially Jurnalul, Tănase is “found dead” two days after resuming the show. I don’t need to stress which version is more plausible. (Besides, as far as I know, there is no known tomb of Tănase)

Inasmuch as I am still able to perform serious work and not just anecdote telling, I’ll try completing the Soviet occupation with some more aspects, like “Soviet counsellors”, IMO, a crucial aspect of Sovietisation. As for the title, I reconsidered my choice: it remains “occupation”… unless you accept “Sovietization” …  :-) --Vintilă Barbu 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

About Soviet occupation of Romania

Speaking of the article, I'm going to have to most regretfully suggest that for accuracy you consider removing (!) the accurate diacritics you added in the armistice signatory quote, as it is then no longer quoting verbatim the (English) version. SIGH! And, of course, we haven't even addressed the freely interchangeable Roumania, Rumania, but never Romania. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Unless we know for sure the diacritics were on the original. Given the Soviet system of butchering names transliterated to English (convert native to transliterated Russian, then transliterate to English insuring to ignore the native spelling, for example, yielding "Zveiniex" for the Latvian "Zvejnieks"), I'm surprised the names are as accurate as they even are! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ...got your message, if you take a look again during editing, you'll see that the Wiki article references all have the appropriate diacritics and almost all already have an article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ...looks perfect. :-) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You’re doing a great work on this entry.

The more I am considering about how long “Soviet occupation” lasted, the trickier the issue appears to me… Arguments have been quite exhausted on the talk page. When deciding upon the duration of the Soviet occupation, I would suggest focusing on the direct influence Soviets had on Romanian life rather than on simple military presence. In face of the difficulties and complexities related to the legal status of the Soviet presence, using the criterion of “Soviet direct involvement” in Romanian life, could probably simplify analyse and help circumscribing those aspects relevant for qualifying the presence as occupation. Let me try examples: imposing the Groza gvt. by Visinski in March 1945, the Sovroms (already done), the Soviet counsellors, the Russification measures in education and culture, etc. I am aware of the considerable difficulties in ascertaining “Soviet direct involvement”. What is directly attributable to the Soviet presence and what is only of “Soviet inspiration” ? Was “Piteşti re-education” imposed by Soviets through Nikolski or only Soviet-inspired? Same question for the Danube-channel. Actually, all these dilemmas subsume under “Is a puppet regime an occupation regime ?”. I think not. I vaguely recall some Soviet directives on how newly constituted satellite –countries are to be governed. I should find that document. Probably we should limit – as you say – the “Soviet occupation” to the first years up to the proclamation of the People’s Republic, creating an in-depth article about “the first years of the Communist regime” including of course the Dej era (already as sections in Communist Romania article), highlighting the Sovietization and the creation, through a puppet regime, of a state mirroring and caricaturing the Soviet Union. (Btw, I think recalling someone having said just after 1945, what the new People’s Romanian Republic will mean: “I.V. Stalin plus I.L. Caragiale”. Anyway, se non è vero, è ben’ trovato. --Vintilă Barbu 09:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Serbia (historical province)

Have you seen this article? Items cases 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A request

Could I please persuade you not to use "ibid." (or "idem")? Whenever a change is made to the note, it becomes extremely difficult to make changes accordingly. Dahn 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob. It's just that I was going through July Theses (kudos, btw), and it was demanding to all those changes (the real problem is when a third person decides to edit and doesn't notice, which could make "ibid" references useless and that much harder to correct). To tell the truth, I haven't seen you use that much - this is why I thought I'd stress the potential for problems: it was better for me to let you know now than for us to be revisiting each and every article. I generally adapt my style to what is already in there, but this was something I couldn't help but change. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers. (PS: I was that abrupt because I had the text open in another window and editing it as I posted here.) Dahn 20:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right - sorry (well, I'm guessing he reads this as well). On the cite formats, i can go with whichever one is used, so I have no clear opinion about that. In case you guys feel more accustomed with one in particular, I will try to abide. Though I'd rather not use the format's metadata (or whatever the script that tells you where to place what portion of the title/name is called) - it's just ugly. In case you want to reach a consensus on this particular issue, i suggest the notice board's talk page (though I must say that, aside from the usual bunch, I suspect most editors on Romanian-related topics won't even know what you're talking about :)). Dahn 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Armed Forces Day

Hi. The root of evil here is that the liberation of Romania was redirected to Soviet occupation of Romania by Krohn, which is POV-forking in my opinion (see also the discussion on the talk page). How should we proceed, should we rewrite the Liberation of Romania article or simply propose it for deletion? Thanks, Mentatus 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed splitting Soviet occupation of Romania into two articles. The liberation of Romania can then discuss the relative merits of the Romanian and Soviet forces in the liberation. -- Petri Krohn 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the split, since the liberation and the subsequent occupation are two different things, because simply redirecting the Liberation article to the Soviet occupation of Romania was POV. I don't deny the merit of the Soviet forces (and I think no realistic person would) in driving the German and Hungarian forces out of Romania (the Romanian Army couldn't have achieved that by herself). Mentatus 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dumitru Dămăceanu, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 09:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elvira Popescu, 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.

Thanks Turgidson.. I see a Romanian theme developing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter

As the header says: Happy Easter! Dahn 10:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 1978 Dictionary says "Aristizza", with no alternative given (I'm guessing it's due to either inconsistency at a time when no alphabet was really set - like for "Hasdeu", "Mateiu", "Millo" etc - or some personal quirk). For the other possible variants, we have redirects. I generally pay little attention to the generic lists, precisely for the reason you indicate (it makes them hard to maintain, but, on the plus side, people who may otherwise destroy articles channel their energies in that area). I suppose linking applies to Strunga as well (I just went with what caught my eye).

People still come up with that absurd theory about "redlinks being bad", and it is amazing that so many people would rather spend their time disrupting articles in this way, instead of contributing content. It also seems this is powered by cultural imperialism, based on what the average Anglo-Saxon suspects is irrelevant (especially annoying since it is implied that, instead of creating one good article, we should fill the room with one-sentence stubs, so that we may then have to explain, as has happened, if they are notable enough...). I say you needn't worry about the "policy", and, if this keeps going, I'll go and ask Jimbo himself about it.

Btw, that is a nice article, and long overdue. Congrats. (Minor style suggestion: the opening paragraphs make heavy use of the word "she", which I would replace here and there with a "Popescu", for variety's sake.) Dahn 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

du Val

Thanks for your work on Patrick du Val. I didn't get around to putting in more details of his work, which I think is currently lacking. I have his obituary from the Bull LMS but I am not so familiar with algebraic geometry. Please feel free to add to it more if you feel so inclined. Billlion 08:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ang[h]elescu & Lido

Hi. I agree with you that Angelescu is the most common form. Still, to expand on the issue, I think discussions on what the most common form is are bound to lead us nowhere in some cases of the same period (for example, Mihai or Mişu Pherekyde is also known as Ferechide, Pherekide, Ferekide, Pherechide, Ferekyde, Pherikide, Ferichide, and even Phereckide), so we may have to go with something common instead of looking for the most common, especially since these people are a bit too obscure for a google hits-based decision. This is just to say that Angelescu may be the lucky exception. I don't know why Bogdan hasn't answered, but I see he is being harassed by some users (one of whom is Bonaparte), so I don't blame him in case he decided to distance himself from the project (though I must say it would be a shame). Then again, I have been exceptionally tardy with my own replies over the last weeks - mainly because I started working randomly on some articles that were overdue. Btw, Ornea's books on Constantin Stere are a superb source on all sorts of people from the 1880-1940 period, but are difficult to search through (I bumped into a lot of info, some of which is about Angelescu, but it will take me time to build them into articles). In the meantime, you could ask another admin for the move.

I cannot really say what the deal with Lido is - the Păunescu businesses, except for B1 TV, are mysteries to me. I agree that we should have an article, but I wouldn't really know where to start (especially since googling it led me to a lot of commercial sites which we would have to avoid in creating the article, making the search more difficult than usual). As you may have noticed, I tend to concentrate my attention on one topic at a time (which, I admit, makes me a difficult person to work with). Though, in case you are in a hurry with the Lido article and want to start it right away, I will be visiting it in the future to see if I can add some stuff. Dahn 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Soviet occupation of Romania [6]

Filed. Please confirm awareness. -- Biruitorul 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

DYK

On 25 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexandru Ghika, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How does "Not verified against its sources" not apply?

I'd like to know. It's perfectly legitimate to caution readers against unverified research. In fact, it's imperative. Wysdom 23:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces

Hi, I remarked that you are interested in Romania and Romania-related articles. I see some huge potential for the Romanian Land Forces article to become a "Good article" (or, why not, in the future it could be a featured article; see Russian Ground Forces - a former featured page). I'll do my best to expand and improve this article, but I think it's not enough and I might need some help. Are you interested in cooperation? Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good if we expand a little the WWI section and maybe add something about the Romanian Anti-communist intervention in Hungary (1919). Also in the current state section, we may add something about the vehicles recently acquired (humvees, piranha IIIc, ghepards) and the native produced: MLI-84 Jders(I couldn't find anything related to this vehicle in the hole wikipedia!), and maybe the modernization of the TR-85. Could you please try to do these things? Cheers, Eurocopter tigre 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and some ref's are always usefull. Eurocopter tigre 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the WWII can also be expanded. I thing you can name that section "Cold War" or something like this (Romanian Air Force has a "cold war" section). So can you take care of the history part? And I could take care of current state , present structure, etc?? Eurocopter tigre 11:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson, we have big problems with some images which will be deleted until 7 May if we don't put the proper licence tag(TR-85 image, TABs image and LAROM image). I wrote an email to the Ministry of Defence public relations office, but I don't know how soon they will reply me. I don't know what to do anymore and I think it will be a disaster for the article if those images will be deleted. Oh, image copyright tagging is really the most annoying thing on wikipedia. How can we fix this problem? Eurocopter tigre 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I uploaded them. Hope the minister will reply me soon (but I really don't believe that). When you are editing the history section you could add some informations about imported weaponry (the Ro Air Force article is a quite good guide), ex: in the cold war section you can something about imported soviet tanks (T-34, T-55, T-72, etc). Best, Eurocopter tigre 11:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you say about that graphic in the present organization? I think it just doesn't belong there. Maybe we should move it...? I really don't know, Noclador may get upset if we remove it because he worked a lot on it. US Army , Russian Ground Forces and British Army articles do not have this kind of graphic. Cheers, Eurocopter tigre 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson, if you are still interested to help in the history part of the Romanian Land Forces article, I found a good source of you about the sovietization of the romanian army - 1 (page 9). Best, Eurocopter tigre 18:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Operation Sarindar

The saga with Operation Sarindar continues, thanks to user cslot who put it on AfC (Comments) list (see Talk:Operation_Sarindar#RfC_on_this_page). It seems that title of the article might be problematic. May be this article should be renamed? Could you suggest something, or may be it is OK right now? Thanks a lot. Biophys 00:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the only problem in this article is one its editor - Biophys, who employs edit warring tactics to push his own POV. I hope that this is not a case of conspiracy to push one POV in the article. Vlad fedorov 06:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right and I just added the link and changed the expression ref. Braşov County at János Apáczai Csere. I'll check again the policy and if I am wrong I'll put back the old names. --Roamataa 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, you can call it Cluj (usually in colloquial speech it is called Cluj, but the official name is Cluj-Napoca and has to be used). Now about the issue of double names the point is that I just saw places where the Romanian names are not even specified. In case of Cluj anyway, before 1550 there were many Transylvanian Saxons there, and as far as I know they were for a long time the majority. And this way we could start a new debate which name to use - the Romanian one, the German one or the Hungarian one? But anyway you should think that when a reader will read Kolozsvár will have doubts about what's this city. In my opinion in this situations it should be used the official today English name and should be specified the names most used in that time - this way the reader will know exactly what city is about (something like ... it was in 1430 in Cluj-Napoca (named at that time Kolozsvar, Klausenburg, Cludiopolis or what name it is)). Or something like this. I intend to study the procedures and clarify this. I prefer also to use clear and uniform standards --Roamataa 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:GeorgeCScott.JPG

Hello, Turgidson. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:GeorgeCScott.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Turgidson. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Traian Băsescu

Hi, if you are or will be on WP these days, may I ask you to please watch Traian Băsescu, giben that it is tagged a current event. I and Dl.goe have copyedited recently some sections of the article, then an old acquentence has rv it. If you feel like copy editting it, please be my guest. I will not mind if someone edits, even massively, incl what you might guess i would disagree, as long as it is honest copyedit, not blant rv without even reading. If you have time and interest...:Dc76 16:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your answer. My worry about Traian Basescu, as well as about Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina is mainly b/c it is so easy to vandalize them. Therefore, the "vigilante" attitude. Of course, I do not want to pick on genuine editing, even if I do not agree with the idea. And of course I don't like the vigilante idea, but unfortunately leaving such articles in a desastrous state for 90% of the time is worse.

I find very interesting and useful your previous idea with International reaction in SOoB&NB, but unfortunately I haven't had yet the possibility to follow it through. The new article is interesting, and I do believe the links you put are justified. One potential problem I see with it, is that some people can blame of Original Research if there is no scholarly sourse in the article that uses the term. Another aspect that I think should at least be mentioned is that Soviet ocupation was in the mind of some/many Russians a re-colonization of what the Russian Empire lost in 1917-20, so in some Russian minds the difference was not too big than French in Algeria for example, or Japanese in China and Korea. If I will find something interesting to birng to that article, I will. Until then, if you need precise translations from Russian, I am available. Have an nice break. bye:Dc76 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask for help

A Romanian user, Roamataa began deleting minority language names in the infoboxes, see for example Bistra and Moldoveneşti. Indeed Roamataa deleted Hungarian names all over the infoxes in Cluj County (about a dozen villages). As far as I know there was a consensus among Romanian users that they accept bilingual infoboxes (with 20 % population limit), and there was no problem with them in the past half year. Please try to speak with Roamataa if it's possible about his campaign. Zello 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I tried to change and edit a recently deleted article (list): [7]. But does it really make any sense? What do you think? Thank you. Biophys 02:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[Do you have an oppinion about this]?

Battle of Mărăşeşti

Ups! Sorry for the mistake. That's what happens when I read hastily. I'll remove that observation from my comments. Greetings,

Any thoughts regarding the best format for the RoLF structure?? Should it remain like is it now, or should it be changed? Victor12 proposed the next format:

1st Territorial Army Corps "General Ioan Culcer" - HQ Bucharest

• 2nd Infantry Operational Brigade "Rovine" - headquartered at Craiova
  • Three Mountain troops battalions
  • One Mixed Artillery battalion
  • One Anti-aircraft artillery battalion
  • One Logistics battalion.
• 8th Mixed Artillery Brigade "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" - headquartered at Focşani
  • Two Artillery battalions
  • Two Multiple Rocket Launchers battalions
  • One Data acquisition battalion
  • One Logistics battalion.

Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Erdős number 2

The category page says the source used is the list from The Erdös Number Project. They give the criteria they use, and I can see, for example, why they consider Armand Borel's Erdős number to be 3. If you want to use a different source maybe you should propose that on the category talk page or something. Ntsimp 04:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Erdös Number Project says, "Not normally included are joint editorships, introductions to books written by others, technical reports, problem sessions, problems posed or solved in problem sections of journals, seminars, very elementary textbooks, books on history, memorial or other tributes, biography, translations, bibliographies, or popular works." (emphasis added) Chowla and Borel's joint work was a seminar. Yes, this is arbitrary, but it's the only source claimed for the category. If we're going to use some other source, I think it should be explained on the category page. Don't get me wrong; I'm excited about adding articles to the Erdős number categories. I'm glad you've been doing that for a long time. I recently got the number of articles in the Erdős number 1 category over 100, and a few days ago I started going down the entire list from the Erdös Number Project and adding existing articles to the Erdős number 2 category; I'm almost done with the Bs. I'm just trying to get the category to reflect what it claims to. Ntsimp 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that you were right and I was wrong. If the issue of which sources to use had been raised back then, these categories might have been gone months ago. It's amazing what useful resources some people want to keep out of the encyclopedia. But keep up the good work! Ntsimp 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BABEL

Hello there, may I suggest adding language template from Babel to your userpage, so other editors can be aware what languages you know and can help with?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Making rude comments about editor's nationality is violation of WP:NPA, assuming bad faith because of it is a violation of WP:AGF - such user should have been warned and/or blocked for harassing you. PS. Out of curiosity, did you feel my message above was pressuring you in any way?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Vlad. Well, he was blocked for 1 month for, among other things, such incivility. In the future, you can report such incidents to WP:ANI (unfortunatly, a dedicated place to this, WP:PAIN and WP:RFI, were taken down, long story...). Dealing with incivility is not easy and not pleasant, but we cannot allow Wikipedia to be turned into second Usenet of incivil troll haven.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Yes, and I'll fix it. Sorry. Dahn 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Given that it is clearly copyrighted material, I would have to say that the first step is to revert it. However, I have a few modest proposals: since you worked on the text, you could sandbox it to save your work, and then expand on it/modify it; me and Biru were discussing a common project of randomly expanding an article on some Romanian politician of the 1800s as an informal collaboration, and your name also came up in the process - as an editor who may be interested in this. With this in mind, we could pick MK and, say, work together in the same sandbox (at your convenience). In fact, when I proposed this, Biru mentioned MK as a likely choice, and I tended to agree.

Still, over the following day or so, I'm not going to be as active as usual - I tend to take breaks after making major edits (feel free to copyedit, byw), and, as you know, something infuriating is going on in certain articles (making me rather depressed). But, in case you agree with the proposals, we'll start it in due time. Dahn 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Righteous. I guess I will see the sandbox the moment you create it (it usually links to this page, which I have watchlisted). Dahn 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The following is the message I left on Biruitorul talk page, and please let me know your opinion of it:

Your guidance has yet again blossomed: the Project is going to be Kogălniceanu, if you agree to it. It came about by accident in a chat I had with Turgidson, and the idea is that he is going to sandbox is for us to work on. Which is nice, because I have a comprehensive article on all his family to cite from. There is the matter of how to avoid edit conflicts; my proposal is that we use the text already present as a template on which to add from other sources. We then map out a plan on how the article should be structured to trace the main events and avoid repetition, while figuring out what future or present articles link to the page and where (kinda like what we planned with the labor movement); for example, we could have a Main article: Dacia Literară, a Main article: Cuvânt pentru deschiderea cursului de istorie naţională, a Main article: Secularization of monastery estates in Romania (or just links to all of these in the text, depending on what sources dictate to us). We then each indicate our sources - we divide those we all have access to among us, and then we each introduce from his side to the text already in there. More or less the same thing for sources only one of us have access to. The best way to do this is, basically, to add everything relevant from each source, one source at a time (we could each start editing in one go, and mark an edit summary as "done" when we have finished). Sounds like a plan?
Oh, and since it is basically Turgidson's turf, we let him decide on Oxford vs. American English, referencing system etc.

Dahn 14:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Here is what I propose: as an initial step, I will rephrase the text already in there, and add notes to it as a reference. Then I will merge with info from a Magazin Ist article. I'll most likely finish this tonight, but I may have to interrupt it for a while. I left further details on how I think we can go about it from there in my previous message.

Just to be clear: did you mean you prefer American English? Dahn 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect (and yes, I too prefer American - it is just that I was under the impression that you tend to edit in British). Btw, it just occurred to me: we can tag it {{inuse}} when we want to avoid edit conflicts (unless we all tag it "inuse" at the same time, it should work out fine). Dahn 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for everything. I put MK on hold for just a bit - only to fill out a related redlink which I will soon unveil for the world to see. Btw, I'm now aware I left unanswered a comment you made on an unrelated talk page - I want to assure it is not because I ignored it; until recently, I simply did not see it my edit history, and then I postponed it until it is acknowledged that a particular user has flown too close to the Sun. Hope you didn't feel offended, but I simply did not want to give him the opportunity to make other speculations about the nature of my contributions. Dahn 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't notice you were editing at the same time. I apologize for any edit conflicts. Dahn 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cohomological dimension

Hi, I've noticed your good contributions to that article. I just wanted to ask you for a favour, can you, please, withhold from reverting projective resolution to projective module? I know it's a redirect at the moment, but there are a couple of reasons to do it this way. Firstly, sooner or later projective resolution will become a separate article, and it's good to keep this option so that the link is more precise (in fact, even now it's possible to redirect to a section in Projective module). Secondly, there is a danger that someone editing this article will remove the wikilink to projective module that appears twice in the same sentence, once as projective module and once as projective resolution. That would be worse than having a redirect. Please, let me know what you think. Arcfrk 04:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A source you may find useful

Hi. I was expanding the article on Serge Moscovici (with what I could - his contribution to psychology is beyond my reach). Anyways, I found this pdf, which you might find useful for the article on the Soviet occupation (I have taken the latter off my watchlist a long time ago, when I noticed the two sides were simply talking past each other, and unsourced or plain idiotic claims were being introduced in the text). Anyway, the pdf is probably among the most useful third-party ones we will ever find on this subject, and has some very lucid accounts while tapping into sources that are usually ignored. Aside from its immense uses in other articles, see the sections about what the Soviet army was noted for by Holocaust survivors, Moscovici included (the pages are not numbered, but the relevant information is present around the references marked 40 to 50, afaict).

I will probably pay some attention to that article in the future, but it is just too heated for me as it is. As a side note: I don't know if anyone noticed when I brought it up in the past (several times!), but the info about what one of the sides wants to call "liberation" (i.e. 1944, not 1954!), is best directed at the Battle of Romania (1944) article. I mean, what use would that article have otherwise?

Hope this helps clarify some stuff on that page. Cheers, Dahn 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Complicated stuff. Well, here's my view, in case Piotrus gets his vote (I do not object to his proposal, we can work with and around it). We keep "occupation" for the overlap, and "main article" it to whatever articles are established by use. For the liberation of Bucharest, we could simply expand on the King Michael Coup, as a section at the very end of the article (with a "main" to whatever). We could then expand on the fighting in Transylvania in the Northern Transylvania article, using much the same system. In addition, we could add stuff on both at the end of "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive". Then we tie them all with a ribbon and summarize whatever is to summarize in the "Romania during WWII" and "Communist Romania" articles. I well and truly hate clutter articles and POV-forks of the kind some users on both sides feel like creating, and I think anything can be voiced informatively and NPOV, no matter what system we end up with (I just glanced over the Soviet occupation article again, and I note it breaks with about a gazillion guidelines). What do you think?

Serge and Henri don't appear to be related, afaict. Then again, I know nothing about Henri (to my shame). Dahn 12:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Petri Krohn

In response to calls to this effect on the talk page, I'm moving forward with the WP:RFC/U with only the last six weeks worth of edits fully classified. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn, which, after minor editing and addition of the most recent 'interesting' diffs, is supposed to become the main RFC around 21:00 UTC tonight. If there are reasons barring you from endorsing the current summary, I would like to learn about them as soon as possible so the main summary can be endorsed by as wide a coalition as possible.

Thanks in advance. Digwuren 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information.:Dc76 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U on Petri Krohn filed

You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed. Digwuren 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

My apoliges are presented here. -- Petri Krohn 16:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more stuff

I didn't get a chance to reply and clarify a bit what must have seemed like cryptic posts On the Soviet occupation: the problems I see mainly have to do with copyediting, and were probably caused by the constant warring - we probably share the overall perspective on what that article needs to look like. For example, though I did propose applying "Soviet presence" (which could cover the meaning), with "occupation" as the alternative and secondary name, if consensus was reached on the name, then "occupation" should be the title and bold-letters "presence" in the first line of the article. Other stuff involves casual, incomplete and competing formats in references, superfluous language icons, overlinking, etc.

I'm glad Biruitorul cited me on the "not disputed if a bunch of wikipedians state it is disputed" thing, since I that exact same attitude in respect to Anonimu's arguments. Furthermore, and you can quote me on this, establishing a name should not rely on what sources "do not" say (ie: sources that do not use the term "occupation"), but on what sources do say (ie: sources who explicitly argue that it was not an occupation); this, of course, in the event that sources "not" discussing the occupation or arguing that it was not one exist and are not solely of the "Party lectures on history" kind. My main point about the Holocaust survivors' paper was a bit vague, I guess, and I did not gather from your answer that you had noticed my point, so, just in case, I will clarify it: somewhere around references 30-50, after discussion on the liberation from camp et al, there is a very interesting testimonial on the negative effects of Soviet presence (stuff such as "you're free from the camps, now come and work for us in Central Asia"). This may, among other such accounts, give a fuller picture of the events, and one would think that the "Legionaries and their Waffen allies vs. The Liberators" canard* will take an additional blow (just in case it was required). I can only help my comments will prove helpful.

On an unrelated issue: it may seem like I hogged the Kogălniceanu project for a while now, given that I introduced the "to do" with the words "what I plan to do next"; well, to be sure, I never did mean it sound like "let's see you watching me do it", and nor do I want it to seem like I'm telling you to add the stuff yourself - unless, of course, you want to (and I am aware of the fact that you may wish to invest your energies elsewhere for now). In case you do want to, you could jump ahead of me in using the "to do" goals, and you can just as well discard them altogether. It's really up to you.

I can never thank you enough for your kind and supportive words in relation to many other issues. I was a bit backlogged these days, for which I apologize. Dahn 09:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

---

*well, I did see the "this comrade is under attack" picture - I have to say that I never pictured Biru that out of shape, and Anonimu with that much talent for drawing :). I don't know if I'm in supposed to be one of the guys that group portrait, but then again, some would say I feature prominently in this one ;).

I simply reverted it to your version, since what that personal political statements in article spaces is clearly not the way to go (though, I have to say, the article in both stages leaves a lot to be pine for).

About moving MK, it really is up to you (though, in case you want to do it soon, allow me to fill in the Freemason stuff first - it is what I was going to do next). It's a shame that you haven't seen the picture: perhaps not Hieronymus (it looked more Ditkoesque in style, and reminiscent of other great works), but worth every piece-of-colored-paper-I-used-to-pretend-was-money-when-I-was-a-kid. Dahn 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I loved the Nixon analogy ;). Dahn 13:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mănăstirea Căpriana

Multam pentru expansia articolului Căpriana monastery. :) / Thanks for expanding the Căpriana monastery article. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

If you have some time, please help preserve info in this article, and protect it from vandalism. :Dc76 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not know about linking only full dates. Thank you.:Dc76 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I might be doing a couple small edits. I'm sure you know it, but don't forget to Ctrl+C on the text to save your work in case we conflict edit. I will either do it subsection-wise edits, or even refain altogether to avoid one of us loosing editted text.:Dc76 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also using a "rudimentary" window. There are software you can download and install to help you do more tricks (I don't remember the link now, just google, or even search within WP for "wikipedia editors" or similar). But I did not install anything on mine (just b/c I was lasy).

What I know, is two people can simultaneously work on diff sections of the same article without the "edit conflict" message. Hence, if there are 15 sections, and we work on one at a time, chances that we'll conflict are slimmer. At any rate, every section is smaller than the whole article, so even if you loose something, you lose less.

If I edit more, sometimes before ckicking "preview" or "save", I just copy (that's ctrl+c = copy) the text I am about to submit. In case there is a problem, even if the browser fails, I still can paste it into a file. It is unsofisticated, but it works.:Dc76 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you know you can archive your talk page, if you want. To do that, add at the top of your talk page:

{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1]] [[/Archive 2]] [[/Archive 3]]}} ''This page was archived following the instructions at [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Cut and paste procedure]].''

Also copy and remove (ctrl+X :-) ) the sections you wish to archive. Save. Click on /Archive 1. Paste (ctrl+P) the sections you are archiving. Add

{{atnhead}}

on top. Save. Done. :Dc76 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

NKVD prisoner massacres

Did the NKVD kill any prisoners in Moldova?Xx236 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see for example Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina for the number of political prisoners killed during the first year (aroud 8,000). See also Bălţi concentration camp or the Tatarka common graves. See also the processes of the anti-communist movements from 1945-1950, such as Arcaşii lui Ştefan, which besides being an organization by itself (about 200 members, around 50 of which were captured and killed) was also an umblela name for a dosen others. See also the case of the "Vasile Lupu" High School process. There are many other instances, unfortunately yet little covered on WP. :Dc76 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dc76, for answering the question — you obviously know much more about this issue. Indeed, it would seem appropriate to have a more in-depth coverage of the subject. Let me know if I can help. Turgidson 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I do not know much more about the issue. It just happened that I ran across this information more often than you. "To know" means to study it in depth, which I almost never did, everything was out of sheer curriousity for me. There is insuficient bibliography, but even the one that is, is already in many dosens of books and articles, etc. Let me paraphrase Dahn a bit and say that someone is definitively studying this in depth nowadays, and all we need is to find these sourses. If I'll have more time, next weeks/months I'll try copiling a list of such sourses, and post it on my userpage, so that people can add items to it, and know what books exist, what to find, where. At least a very provisional list. And that is something, you definitevely could help with. I will let you know when I progress a bit more.:Dc76 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dorin Tudoran

On July 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorin Tudoran, 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.

The entry read:

• ... that Romanian poet, dissident, and journalist Dorin Tudoran was only allowed to leave Romania for the United States after a 42-day-long hunger strike in 1985?

(Nobody got to mention that on my talk page, so I guess I'll do it myself. :)) Turgidson 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You should have waited a bit longer: I could have given you this one, and you could have given me one for Gheorghe Asachi, because they forgot me as well :). It makes it hard to count them, and I noticed there was a race going on... Dahn 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to ponder (let me know if you're interested)

I was wondering: how would you feel about putting the old sandbox to use again? There are still plenty of articles that could use expansion and are easy to source, and several pitiful ones keep stabbing me in the eye. One such sore is the article on Caragiale, which also promises to be a fun one to do. I did something on Commons in view of that, and I think you may have noticed it on Mateiu. I'm not going to nag you about it, but please let me know if you would like to host and oversee this project (and, of course, if you have the time and it interests you, help source it). Dahn 01:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My exact sentiments. On the plays: I think that the best way is to create articles under the Romanian titles, with redirects (or, where it applies, disambig for the [several] English titles). I also think we could discuss in detail his journalism under an article for Moftul Român. On the Ro FA: my answer to your question would have to be "0%". Allow me to explain myself: regardless of Rowiki's failures, that article is nowhere near standards (it has no citations, not even for the boldest of its subjective statements, it lacks essential details, and its format is a mess). Plus, I suspect much of it was simply copypasted from somewhere. On the other hand, I have around me material that could help source virtually every single aspect of his life - this may sound like I plan to hog it, but I my intention is for us to create an intertwining pattern of citations (which would allow us to compare sources at any level, like I did on MK and elsewhere). In addition, Mateiu and other articles has led me to sources which discuss at length various points that the ro article does not even touch: his Greek origins (which he hid for a part of his life, for very interesting reasons), his politics (he mocked everyone but Take, but somehow ended up moving to Berlin), the disgust he expressed in his old age in respect to all things Romanian, his appreciation for Minulescu, his lifelong friendships with Vlahuţă and Dobrogeanu-Gherea, his love affair with Veronica Micle, his consuming conflict with Mateiu, his criticism of Bacalbaşa, his philo-Semitism, his tongue-in-cheek claim to have been vice president (or whatever it was) of the Republic of Ploieşti... oh, the possibilities. Dahn 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Thanks for the Asachi comments, and yes, I think the DYK guys are flooded with stuff (they also appear to have dropped their guards, and have allowed for inconsistencies in the entries, at times on the same page... oh, well).

I recently bough a copy of Cioculescu's collected essays, Caragialiana, and I have two of Cazimir's books around - they are very valuable for what you're asking, and not just (in fact, Cioculescu's is a treasure all on its own). In the long run, expanding can easily lead to several interconnected FA-level articles in the future (or even symultaneously), where we could add there more or most of the "Caragiale and the lexis" topic; the problem, however, is that it is very difficult trying to determine what those articles should be (of course, aside from the plays and other notable works, which name themselves) and how they should be titled and structured to avoid vagueness and/or content overlap. Would Caragiale and Romanian politics work? should we revive the article on Mitică that Anittas started for, well, very different purposes, and trace on the stereotype from Caragiale to Sabin Gherman? if we have individual article on plays, do we also need articles on characters in plays (i.e. Rică Venturiano - I tend to assume we do not)? Also: it is reasonable to assume that a large article on his legacy alone could be created, eventually - if you agree, how do you think it should be titled? In short: Simţ enorm şi văz monstruos. Dahn 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall starting such an article. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Two points: let's for now take into consideration an article on his influence in general (under a title to be discussed) and plan a section where we could detail his influence on Romanian (or, at least, on colloquial Romanian). Also: I believe that articles on individual characters should be limited to the likes of Mitică, or the collective Lache, Mache and Tache (i.e. "heroes" who either transcend one writing or are eponymous). My rationale is this: we could, in theory, have a large article created on, say, Rică Venturiano or Nae Ipingescu, but they would be largely redundant to the articles on the plays (i.e. all the detail that could enlarge the articles on them would function as essential context in the articles on the plays, to the point where it would be impossible to delimit them as independent articles). Do you agree?

Good idea on O făclie de Paşte (as a side note, wikisource has interesting insight on it from Dobrogeanu-Gherea).

Indeed, this looks like a large and consuming project. This is why I'm glad we share the burden (or is it the joy?). Dahn 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, then. I propose we continue to discuss other possible articles as we go, since it could help us structure the core article (we could, for example, redlink to future main articles). Dahn 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No problemo: whenever you're ready. I don't really know where that info goes, but perhaps it is somehow connected to this series? Dahn 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC timeline

We should have at least a week, so it should be plenty of time to fix anything. Btw, check FAC talk, your name was brought up there...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice bit of expansion on Alan Nunn May

I just came across your expansion of Alan Nunn May, and wanted to say thanks. It looks like a useful bit of work, and it is appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I though, well, why not?

Hi again. Here is something I started. Dahn 09:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. The explanation may be overkill though: consider that Transylvania went through a million such changes (and I still hope that this move doesn't get interpreted as Whig history...). Dahn 11:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Images from ro.wiki

Hi. Please be a bit more careful with uploading images from ro.wiki. Most of them are copyvios which are wrongly tagged "PD". You uploaded http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine:Florian_Pittiş.jpg saying that it was created by ro:User:JUNKIE, although on the Romanian wiki, the page says nothing about who was the creator. (actually, the picture appears to be taken from Jurnalul National). Thanks, bogdan 09:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Turgidson. I have a similar doubt about Tezaurul-pietroasa.jpg (the image at ro:). The picture apears to be taken from the National Museum of Romanian History's website.
  I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 9/Images. - Best regards, Ev 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexandru Graur

Thanks for copyedit and addition to the article. -- AdrianTM 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Most complex university?

UBB is the most complex university in Romania in terms of the variety of specialisations. To answer your question about the University of Bucharest: its "minus" is the fact that the Economics section is actually a different university - the Academy of Economic Studies. But to be honest I'm not a big fan of formulations like "the greatest", "the most complex" etc. I've seen that Roamataa changed the phrase a bit and it probably reads better now. Best regards, Alexrap 11:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:UBB

I agree. Unfortunately now I don't have much time and cannot help there. The article need help, it seems that almost half of the text became about the incident with the lecturers and there are many other things that article should include. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A revolution in the revolution

Hi again. I'm still wrestling with Ion Luca, but I noticed that something came up on an issue which we both took an interest in: see here (and just when I was about to admit that I may have been wrong about it potentially being problematic...). Dahn 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. My "wrestling" was in no way a call to arms - I would welcome any suggestion or addition when you have the time, and I hope that what I did in the meantime is to your liking. I have some questions surrounding the issue of subarticles - I'm thinking of turning the final sections (from "and the language" to the very end) into a Ion Luca Caragiale's cultural legacy (or something like that), but I don't know yet if this is appropriate - it just strikes me as the easiest way to split the current version, which is turning into a monster. I would, of course, summarize its most important points in the main article. I'm running this by you because, well, we seem to share the passion for Caragiale, but also because you always have more precision in assessing relations between topics than I'll ever do.

I would also like to ask if I may use your sandbox for this: all of mine are currently flooded, and I had to semiprotect them because of Bonaparte (meaning that a new one would be exposed); it would also help organize the effort, since, if I remember correctly, you specifically wanted to add some info on this part of the article, and since there is a helluvalot more to add there (on films, statues, places named after etc).

I look forward to the pictures, though there is nothing in particular that comes to mind. Something to consider: I don't really know if the place is marked, but perhaps a photo of Mateiu's house on Strada Frumoasă (since it is in the general area)? Or, if it is not identifiable, then perhaps a view of the street itself? Outside that perimeter: Bogdan mentioned something about Ion Luca's home on another street, but I don't know where that would be (probably near Hotel Dorobanţi, but that may be out of your way). I think we could also use a better picture of Heliade's statue in front of the University, and, to stick with my pet projects, a photo of Take Ionescu's (somewhere near Izvor). I was also dreaming about a good photograph of the Faculty of Law facade, for the art deconess of it all (another interesting thing in the area is the WWI monument for the eponymous heroes - if I recall correctly, Biru had an article on it, but I cannot seem to find right now). These are things I planned to photograph myself once I got hold of a camera, but other stuff keeps coming up - if you like my suggestions and happen to pass by any of those landmarks, I would be grateful. (In the past, I considered requesting such photos on the notice board, but I wanted to avoid seeming presumptuous.) Dahn 18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. And thank you. Yes, you could delete the text entirely (since it is preserved in the history of two separate pages at the moment), or you could start a new sandbox for each project (though I suppose this method has its limits - I'm not sure what is considered an "acceptable" number of sandboxes, but I've seen users with six or seven.

I actually knew nothing about the hotel or the guy, and I'm pretty impressed. I must admit I'm also a little confused: do you mean to say you're there? That must be nice (it's the name of the city, after all). Hm, that is a "Titulescian" city, but I'm guessing that nothing survives of his presence. So, no, nothing in particular. (Does Henri N. actually have a page on fr wiki? All I could find was in Deutsch and Dutch). Dahn 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - that where in the world thing must have been awkward... it's just that it came right after the photos thing. I did a quick search, and it seems that others back up the notion that Henri N. was Romani and an amateur violinist (I note that the article you cite actually says that it was his father who was from the "campagne environnante"). Perhaps one could build a decent article on stuff such as this, this and this. I also found some interesting stuff on google books.

Thanks for the sandbox. I'll copy the text there once a sort out some loose ends (it needs some reworking of the references, and I'll have to decide on a summary). If you want to add stuff to the sandbox in the meantime, I'll work it in the text. Btw, I would welcome any comments or suggestions on this article.

I'm also sorry for the delay: it seems your message came just as I was logging off.

Godot, you say? I'd better hurry it up then :D Dahn 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill, conspiracy theorist category

I have just come across yet another professor who wrote an article about Churchill's conspiracy theorizing. She even goes so far as to compare Churchill's theories to "The X-Files." That makes three or four professors who present Churchill as a conspiracy theorist now. Is this debate worth revisiting?Verklempt 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:ElviraPopescu.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ElviraPopescu.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lange Model

Hello, I noticed some of the additions you made to the Oskar R. Lange article. I was wondering if you would be willing to give me any feedback on the additions I've made to the Lange Model article. Thanks so much! --EMB330 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and help. Your feedback was helpful, and I appreciate your advice! --EMB330 08:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Erdős number‎ categories nominated for deletion

__meco 13:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Erdos numbers

I was able to find 22 people with Erdos number 6 with less than 5 minutes of work; see my reply to your comment on the CFD page for details. SparsityProblem 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanian military history task force

Greetings Turgidson, I would like to announce you that the Romanian military history task force has just been created on the Military history WikiProject. Please have a look on it, and maybe you would like to join it. Any help would be very usefull! Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A present to mark your return

Good to see you back. (If I got it right, the picture is of Felix and a golden goose, which I can only presume he obtained from Switzerland :)). Dahn 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it (and I can only presume the "quieted down" was owed to the fact that he doesn't pay them extra for that). Caragiale is developing slowly into three articles: the main one, the one in your sandbox, and the one at the bottom of this page. It looks rather chaotic for now, and I took a rather long break, but I'm working to source from Garabet in all three, and then I'll go back to the Cazimir sources (which are mainly for some details here and there). I'm guessing that I'll finish my part in about a week or so. (Although I may fade out to edit other articles - I'm planning one on Kir Ianulea). Feel free to make any additions, suggestions, or copyedits, and criticize me mercilessly.

I noticed the VT additions, and kudos. As for reshaping the second part, I was going to propose an introduction where we clarify the "camps", succession of events (down to this day) and nature of comments - for example, Shafir produces some serious criticism of VT's work (before and during his chairmanship), but takes a stand against the, shall we say, professional critics at Ziua and elsewhere (it turns out that many of VT's notable critics do the same). We should also clarify that criticism of VT has itself been the topic of controversy, and make a brief mention of the purely political responses to the report (centered on the stand-off in parliament), before indicating middle-of-the-road replies such as those of Teodorescu and Puşcaş (both of whom actually endorse VT's expertise and position, and one of whom indicates that his entire party does). I have tried to sketch out this into separate sections, but it proved a daunting task - especially given that most of yesterday's controversy has since turned into weightless foam. I would welcome any suggestion on how to approach this, if you have the time and interest. Dahn 16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. In the [immediate] future, I plan to start a section on his contributions, where I would move the Barbu reference as scholarly commentary on one of his works. From what I know, his works are discussed in academia because of several concepts he introduces in studying Romanian (and Soviet, and Cuban etc.) communism. Roughly, these are: the dynastic component, the necessity and importance of opposition from the left, the communist emphasis on survival at all cost (to the point of discarding dogma). In the Romanian case, there is also the concept which gave a title to one of his books: the eternity of Stalinism. Of course, at least some of this is arguably not his original contribution (at least, Shafir says it isn't), but they seem to be topics in any discussion involving VT's works. See for example here.

We seem to have agreed on sectioning the controversy part, but, if you look into it, you may agree with me that this is bound to be somewhat difficult. For one, all the disputes cover interconnected and even interlocked events - to give you one example, Gallagher begins by challenging VT's earlier work (before the report was issued), insists on mentioning issues that would have made VT seem like the ally of people who came to oppose the report (Iliescu and Voiculescu), discusses the Becali thing (which I've only seen discussed in one other source, and complicates the matter of cordial relations between VT and Dan Pavel), and then, soon after the report is issues, gives VT his full backing, claims to expose VT's other critics as people involved in a diversion, and, in the end, they come to discuss the implications of impeachment... How should one approach this intricacy without splitting the point? Shafir's polemic is very similar, with added emphasis on the fact that, when discussing his attitudes, one would already have to clarify where Ziua stood in the whole affair (since Shafir, as well as Tapalagă, cut off their relations with the paper at a particular stage in the controversy). And then there's this and this.

What I considered doing was to headline the section with a paragraph or two (or three) on the dramatis personae and the succession of events down to the referendum and even after. We could then reshape it into several sections - one on the reaction of political parties (therein, I would tend to include a brief mention of the PRM's show in parliament); Gallagher and Shafir and Liiceanu; the press reaction (Ziua, but also the Tricolorul lawsuit); commission membership (Goma and Antohi). These are just tentative proposals, and, although this seems to be the least repetitive order, the succession is quite arbitrary.

I'm also going to try and source more on his actual political opinions. Never mind that he was never a Trotskyist (not that it would matter much if he was), but 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 (which is consistent with some of his comments on various issues of the day, as well as with his field of employment in Philly). I don't personally agree with all that such a stance implies, but I think that it is bordering on calumny to let it appear as if he is still making his comments as a Marxist. Plus, this should add him to the long line of people who start from the anti-totalitarian left and end on the quasi-libertarian right (one of the comments you made at some point on the more intelligent of Trotskyists leads me to believe that you are aware of such parallels).

Looking forward to your comments, Dahn 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The comments I was able to find were also from Dan Pavel, but they have either been taken off the net or I cannot seem to replicate my earlier search (I might have the link saved into some text file, as I occasionally do that for interesting material - hopefully, it wasn't one on his many pieces in Formula As, as these would be taking us into the grayish area of WP:RS). When I was trying to find them just now, I bumped into this (which is great material for both his scholarship and his political opinions).

What I have in mind is creating a section titled "Views and contributions" or something of this flexible nature, with a final paragraph (or final paragraphs) discussing his purely political stances. I would however move his support for the Iraq intervention (or, in any case, the bulk of it) into some part of the controversy, based on the fact that it is presented as such by WshP - I could then see if there are more sources on who criticized him (Americans? Romanians? both?) and why/when/how. For now, I was able to find an essay at the Wilson Center, where he discusses Eastern European reactions to the Iraq War (unfortunately, it's a doc file). And we could perhaps "tailor" the introductory paragraph I proposed to outline all the notable debates he has been involved in.

I have looked into the CfD you mention following the message you got here, but I know next to nothing about the merits of the subject (though, I must say, the related illustration insults my intelligence :)). I lean towards keeping the tidbits in this project, but listifying shouldn't be that bad (on the plus side, lists are harder to modify and lose track of). Dahn 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we agree. I'll check back on the article soon (I'm concentrating on my Caragiale edits at the moment), but I'm already looking for additional material. On google books, it is hard going through texts that use him as a reference and texts that actually discuss him, but I've already found some stuff in Deletant's Communist Terror.... I can only hope Mr. Roncea and the odd vandal leave the article be in the meantime :). Dahn 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

AHA! (Which also implies that he is prolly not right-wing; there's more stuff here, but I don't even want to begin considering that site a reliable source) Dahn 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I very much agree with all your points. What I took into into consideration was that, right or wrong, the Euston Manifesto (which seems to have been the beacon for this one) is generally thought of as exclusively left-wing. And yes, the concepts are especially problematic when one considers the Europe vs. US tagging: I don't think that the American definition of anything statist as left-of-center communicates much to the European experience, and I can safely say that many things perceived as "leftist" in the US are middle-of-the-road in other countries. And then there are the potentially incomprehensible terms exchanged, such as "liberal" and "conservative" (indeed, Lieberman!)...

If that manifesto does anything, however, it is to amend my perception that he was himself included by the narrow US definition of "rightist" - note the reference to Roosevelt (Ann Coulter flips her wig!). He probably doesn't fit into any conservative or right-wing libertarian camp (as I was ready to assume earlier): if that could mean anything in the rest of the world, I guess it makes him pretty left-of-center by US standards. [Btw, just to take a poke at "my own camp", I don't know how many "dictators on the right and left" Roosevelt battled when he was joking with Stalin about the number of Wehrmacht officers one needed to shoot - which Stalin took pretty seriously, as it turns out...] Dahn 07:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse the delay - I was mostly off wiki these past days. I do actually agree with the assessment, and would also like to add that I consider left and right to apply selectively and with a large grain of salt. In fact, the cases you mention, though very relevant in themselves, only touch a part of the whole issue: they relate with ideological extremes, which are generally easier to locate. But if one is to look, for example, at the late 19th century leftist movements attacking "bourgeois" radicalism, and note the intervention of people such as Georges Valois, or deal with Dobrogeanu-Gherea's surprising attacks on National Liberal protectionism, the concepts of "left" and "right" would only be useful to set up position that one would be forced to amend in one breath. Without digressing further, I think that the article on VT should not take his signing of the manifesto as indicative of him being left wing or right wing or centrist: it is important to mention that he signed it (which is relevant with or without implications), whereas interpretations of where he stands could be based on informed commentary in sources (just in case we do find someone actually saying "he's to the left" or "he's to the right"). "Off the record" (since I do enjoy this conversation), I think that he did go through some sort of ideological change, but one cannot be sure where it got him :). In any case, I'm glad Livezeanu came up, since the article on her proved to be a small sandbox for what we could do there. Dahn 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - but I could add that there is a starting point, but for sure not always, if and where the persons use those labels as a means to identify themselves. In that case, I go with "God'll sort 'em out" ;).

There is a side note to the far right and far left debate, especially considering the 1930s. It seems that people with otherwise respectable libertarian or, for lack of a better word, conservative views tend to define everything on the statist side of the fence as "socialistic". This strikes me as a reductio at Hitlerum - not because it would be groundless, but because it is used to inflame passions on the left. There are two reasons that stand in contrast to this view: one is that if, for example, Mussolini begun by praising Marx and Lenin, he did aim for something independent and different, and in this context Lenin and Marx have nothing to be blamed for (just as Marx has little to be blamed about when it comes to Lenin - given that he advised against everything Lenin was to do etc.); the other is that not all left, and not even all socialists, have been statist or monopolizing (though I fully agree that most who weren't had a huge and basic contradiction to solve if they were to launch into anything - that between collectivism and liberty). In addition, no matter how debased the concepts of [far] left and [far] right have always been, I can only agree that fascism was a mutation of socialism into some other realm (it wasn't even the first mutation of its kind, and people like Sorel are responsible for that "interesting" twist). People forget that, back when the direct predecessors of fascism were emerging, liberalism and/or laissez faire were minority concepts outside the Anglo-Saxon realm. At the time, the main issue tormenting European minds was who should the state favor...

Indeed (though I'm not in a rush to add it there...) Dahn 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Indeed, the Marx-to-Duce link would have to be a very loose one, but the Marx-to-Lenin one follows closely in that ranking. Several of Lenin's core theories were Marxist no-nos, and he developed them while clashing with a more powerful and, one would have to say, more orthodox Marxist faction. Even his country of choice was notoriously deemed unsuited for revolution by Marx.

This is not to say that Marxism is free of aberrations, and that anything built on it would not potentially lead to a very similar place - though, granted, one would have to try and discern which of the many contradictory things Marx argued for was more Marxist than the other. To give you an analogy: we can safely say that building a political system on Nietzsche's theories would most likely result in bloodshed, but the Hitler-Mussolini claim to accurately reflect Nietzsche's theories is unverifiable and, well, libelous.

I don't recall having read a text where VT would discuss this exact notion, but his personal transition, his treatment of various socialist groups in conflict (for instance, the PSD vs the PCR), and a quote in one of Pavel's texts above (about Marxism being compromised, unlike Marx), indicate to me that he too separates the responsibilities when it comes to the Leninist and the non-Leninist left.

Regarding your addition to teh VT article: I suggest we eventually merge that into a section on his work (perhaps like: "what book x is about. what y says about book x"). This is because, for example, both Gallagher and Shafir assess some of his books in their otherwise unrelated debates, and because the text on his works would also have to cite critical appraisals. But, yes, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it :). Dahn 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

About M&L: Here is a little debate between three of the usual suspects on this fascinating subject. Maybe we should have a free-for-all on this at some point? (BTW, what's wrong with UB, besides the fact that it's in Muntenia??) In the meantime, back to the more mundane task of improving the VT & related articles: I've been adding some stuff on scholars that seem to be somewhat related professionally to him. Maybe some of this can be put in better context? Turgidson 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: it took me a while to notice that you had replied here. To tell you the truth, I had noticed some of that discussion beforehand. Still, I don't want to get tangled into ideological debates with Anonimu: I find little merit in his opinions on the matter, and I have to say that others have already walked down that road he is taking, with more style and panache. Granted, it's a step up from endorsing Romanian communism :). Also, I very much agree with Biru's position: indeed, one cannot say how Marx would have reacted to Lenin, especially considering that, by the time Lenin was in his prime, other Marxists were busy portraying him as a usurper. Again, I'm not saying that Lenin's system is anti-Marxist, and Marx has a responsibility for having provided these guys with at least some of the instruments they used to destroy the world. But the responsibility is symbolic, and the legacy self-contradictory; in any case, the link is not as direct as the one between Lenin and Stalin (for all the energy Trotskyists and others have invested in erasing that link, there is no Stalin without a Lenin). (And I have no idea what his UB comment was supposed to mean.)

I'll soon come up with a sketchy expansion in the VT article, which we could develop further. Dahn 15:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

wikilinks

If you add wikilinks to non-existent BLPs, why not actually write the bio? Otherwise a link to the page on Alexander-Spanier cohomology might suffice for the moment. Mathsci 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories by Erdos numbers

User:Mikkalai/By Erdos contains a very raw list made from remnants of categories and the log of the bot which implemented the deletion you opposed. Please join the discusion here to decide how to proceded. A clandestinely proud Erdos-Number-3-wikipedian `'Míkka 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories

Recently, as you know, the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages (e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review towards overturning the deletion, at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Names in citations

At homotopy groups of spheres you have expanded many of the initials to full names. I was being careful to list names exactly as they appeared on the papers; are you following that? (Please reply here rather than on my talk page.) --KSmrq^T 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that that was what was meant -- I was trying for a uniform format, with all names in full, as much as possible, since I think that that's the most informative. But if there are other considerations in play, and/or a policy or a consensus that having names listed exactly as in references takes precedence over uniformity of style in a given article, or completeness of information, I'll listen to it, and go with it if the case is compelling. Turgidson 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RoAF helicopter crash

Thanks for your help in this and for adding sources - that's really usefull. Also, see my comments here: User talk:BillCJ; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Racism from user:Anittas

Hi Turgidson, this is not the first time the user manifested racism, but take a look here: [8], this collaborated with "Muntenians are a different race of mammals" -- depending on how the RfC on user:Anonimu is resolved I think I will open a RfC on Anittas. I just wanted to let you know... -- AdrianTM 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Biru...err, I mean, Turgidson. Sorry, I made a copy-and-paste. Turgidson, see my reply to Adrian. My comment is sourced. I don't understand why he thinks it's a racist thing to say that Bucharestneans have Asian influence. Is he implying that it would be a bad thing? In that case, he's being racist. Perhaps we should start a RfC on him. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Drop it or you're going to loose Ani! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.193.42 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for support. -- AdrianTM 02:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Surnames

Thank you for hunting them down (I had forgotten how many were around). Do you think we should have a single format for them? I mean, I had created them as disambiguation pages, and they were later turned into articles on their own - I don't object to that system, though I see its limitations, but I wonder if all pages should perhaps look like that. I.e.: should we drop the disambiguation tag? should we use the surname tag (which, for some annoying reason, also makes the articles part of the generic and currently redundant category "Surnames")? Dahn 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have stuck with simple disambiguation, precisely because I saw some of the problems you mention at the time I started editing these, and there are also other issues to consider (I'll expand on them below). However, if this (rather short-sighted) system was imposed on wiki, I guess I can work with it. That said, I have a couple of proposals. For starters, it seems we agree on the double-level categorizing being counterproductive: for all the merits the "surname" template has in clarifying what the page is about, we should remove it from every page in the new category.

I also agree with you on the "develop or disambig issue" - if and when, then, yes, we will expand. One of the issues I mentioned revolves around this point. Let's say we get four persons who are notable, but who share an odd surname with no particular history to it: what is the chance of this being an article?

I would go with separate pages for "Niculescu" etc. - though a single one would group Niculescu/Nicolescu/Niculescu.

Personally, I am in complete disagreement with the inculcated habit of having articles for given names with long lists of people who share that given name - aside from monarchs and the likes, that cannot be anything but unencyclopedic. That said, I would create articles on surnames and explain their original use as a given name somewhere in the article. As for the list: Ion Ion under Ion, Gheorghe Ion under Ion, but Ion Gheorghe under Gheorghe.

Another possible solution to several problems is this: turn lists like Ion (name) into articles that would focus on explaining all sort of things about the name (origin, variants, monikers, cultural icons etc) - btw, isn't Ion also a Gaelic name?; create an Ion (surname) or, just to be sure things don't get mixed, an Ion (Romanian surname) that would focus mainly on disambig purposes for people with the same surname, and briefly summarize the etymology; link both to the Ion (diambiguation) page (turning "Ion (name), the Romanian equivalent of John" into "Ion (name), the Romanian equivalent of John, and Ion (Romanian surname), a surname based on it"). This could then be adapted, mutatis mutandis, to most other such names - for example Toma, which I was tempted to create using this system earlier today (note that Toma is also a Japanese name!), so I was definitely going to go with "Romanian name" or "Romanian surname" (though, for the given name, I was simply going to link to Thomas - which I still think is for the best in that case). In my view, this sort of "segregation" could also be applied to pages in the "Romanian surnames" cat that currently look really weird: for one, I would turn Tanase into: "Tanase may refer to:/Tanasi, a Cherokee town near present-day Vonore, Tennessee/Tănase, a Romanian name" (btw, have you perchance seen this abomination?).

One problem I find especially tough is the issue of minority names, especially those that are transliterated from another language and their transliteration sticks. Take for instance "Moscovici": four notable people have share that surname, and they're all Romanian-born (except for Pierre). The suffix is unmistakably Romanian, but does this mean the name has become Romanian, or is a local variation of "Moscovich" (which itself is of many origins)? Or is it that, given this Romanianized form it has, "Moscovich" itself can be considered a Romanian name?

Another issue is the linking to these pages. In the Caragiale sandboxes, I came to deal with the name he uses (as I'm sure you noticed); do you think we should make the surnames into bluelinks/redlinks there and elsewhere? Dahn 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Homotopy groups of spheres

Don't worry about editing the article or the citation format. If there is a revert to use the Harvard format, I will restore your edits. I will also ensure your citation style is consistent with whatever decision is reached. Geometry guy 21:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the debate about the citation formats, so I'm a bit at a loss what to do with that. I put in a first approximation of what I wanted to add, and would like to take a break now -- could you please check the format, and see what needs to be done to make it "standard"? BTW, I'm not sure whether to add a doi id when it points to the same page as the one to which the url field points to. Also, back to the substance: would it be worth expanding more on that braid stuff? It may take the article too far afield, but on the other hand, it's kind of fun, I think. We'll see. Turgidson 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The "standard" for citation is being discussed at the moment. I just wanted to reassure you that I will endeavour to preserve the content you contribute, no matter what the outcome is about citation style. As for DOIs, I use them systematically in real life, but am not sure that Wikipedia has cottoned on to them. By all means add them, though. As for substance, if such expansion takes the article too far afield, it could always be used to generate a subarticle. As you say, we shall see. Geometry guy 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Multam' ---- Cezarika f. (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny comment in that RfC

"You can repeat that to youself so you can sleep well during the night, buy you know very well you ain't right." I think this is really funny, considering that I've been taunted in a similar way by another well known editor... for the record, I think you are right and we'll see this very soon. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a Romanian proverb

Hi, I see that you like proverbs, I'm a great fan of them too. I think that Romanians have a proverb on the lines of "don't wrestle with pigs because they don't mind the mud" or "because they are used with the mud" do you know the correct version? Or is this an English one? I'm a little bit confused. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a great idea to have a Category:Romanian proverbs Wow, This. Is. Great. didn't know it. Maybe we can work on this proverb category, I'm also interested in equivalency of proverbs across cultures. -- AdrianTM (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The equivalent for the proverb you're asking about, Adrian, is "Dacă te bagi în troacă, te mănâncă porcii". Dahn (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. So, would a Category:Romanian proverbs be appropriate for English Wiki? -- AdrianTM (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think It's a good idea to start with the original ones and provide both literally translation and a rough equivalent proverb in English. How is it better to procede so these won't get deleted, should we create the category and couple of articles at a time? (sorry I'm not very used with Wikipedia policies and practices) -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OK then, let's start some collaboration in a sandbox for 2-3 interesting proverbs. Maybe Dahn will want to help... have to go for a while, I'll be back. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

Would you mind activating your email?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it still doesn't work. You need to verify your email address; see WP:EMAIL.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu

You may want to list yourself on the list of participants. Will ^(talk) 15:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are involved, yes, you can add yourself. I only put K, Biru and Istvan because I know they've dealt with him before. Will ^(talk) 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The abover person, WILL does not accept the opinion of 23 millions Romanians that Moldovans and Romanians are the same nation. Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)