User talk:Moldo

Moldo is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when is possible.

Ziua etc

Hi. No, I did not. Anything you could sum up, or is it an article that I should read? Dahn 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking in the archives now. Shouldn't take too much time. --Moldo 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been looking through the article, and it contains, in my opinion, the major pov that I condone in newspaper and literature. The strict definition the editorialist gives to Romanianness is ethno-nationalist - I may disregard the fact that I consider it fallacious, but I could never disregard it being single-sided (as illustrated by the idea that, if more than 51% of Romanians want a union, that union should come to be - which is like saying "Puerto Rico should become an American state because 51% of American citizens feel it should"). The "Moldovan identity" may be artificial. According to my own definition, it is more artificial than any national identity (which is to say: they all are to a lesser degree). But this is destined to remain a purely academic observation, lest "Moldovans" decide en masse that they should be Romanian (since it is always a matter of choice).

I'll go on to say that I think the Moldovan identity has been created as of late (although not completely without its intellectual precedent - as noted in the fact that Moldavia had been its own country for eons - which could have just as well led to "Moldova/Moldavia is to Romania what Croatia is to Serbia"). I will state that it has been induced through persecution and violence, and prolonged by cultural isolation (although I find the notion that "intimidation and indoctrination from the present Moldovan government are significant" to be bullshit). But why should that matter now? If a person is the victim of a rape, do you "un-rape" her? And is not cultural identity still a matter of choice (in the sense that I cannot and should not redefine it because I think I should)?

The case the article makes about "two states, two nations" being "illogical". Well, the "Moldovan" identity is artificial. Ok. And the Belgian, Austrian, or Swiss identities are not... Let's pretend for a minute that a Swiss nationalism (as opposed to inner-Swiss German, Italian, French etc) does not exist. Ergo, a Swiss nation does not exist (neither does a Belgian one). And yet: why is it that when I check out a map of Europe, I see a Belgium and not a larger France and a larger Netherlands? (Rhetorical question: we all know the answer is "because they did not want that to happen"). In fact, Moldova has had a unionist government in power (coalition! unlike the single party one of Communists), and voted it out after it proved incompetent in the economical field (which should give us a glimpse of what the inhabitants of Moldova address before they get to symbolics).

Now, to the union proposals (because I might not know specifically what you are referring to, but I do know of such projects in the past). I did not want to clog pages on Moldova etc with my view on this, but I think that Russian and Romanian jingoisms can meet and talk to each other over Moldova's head. People who say that Moldovan identity is a package deal with Russianism are either misinformed or malevolent. It may be that some Russian-speakers in Moldova do swell up the numbers of "Moldovans", but Russia is holding Moldova at ransom over Transnistria (much to the irritation of Mr. Voronin - remeber his conflict with Putin). At the same time, Romanian unionists are working for the integration of a Moldova without an embarassing Transnistria (where Romanians/Moldovans are in a relative minority, and where Russia holds on to its interests). People like Voronin are trying to enforce a Moldovan notion against both Romanians and Russians. Think what you want of the project they have, but (until proven otherwise) they seem to have the backing of their people (whatever you wanna call it), and they have a rightful monopoly on how to decide for themselves and their other citizens. Dahn 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus! What a short comment! You really knock me out!--Moldo 13:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see: you tell me that I write long replies and then ask me if I want to write a book :). Dahn 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you this because you impressed me. I ask you or should I say you should think about writting a book. Moldo 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are too kind. Dahn 20:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ion, could I ask that you start articles with diacritics? I had to redirect your Targu Frumos towards an already existing article. Plus, we all should use diacritics as a rule. Thanks in advance. Dahn 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you could of course :). I didn't know that my Targu Frumos article already exists. Most people don't use diacritics and it should exist the articles names without diacritics. They're too lasy to use them. Moldo 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about that. If you type in Bucuresti you get to the Bucharest article. That is because of a neat trick I have learned: redirect. For example, if you want to start an article on, let's say, Şţ. Ąèìǔĉ (let's pretend a Şţ. Ąèìǔĉ does exist). You write it with diacritics, then start a new page on St. Aeiuc. What you type on the second page is:

#REDIRECT [[Şţ. Ąèìǔĉ]]

In your case, that would mean the page Targul Frumos or Targu Frumos and then:

#REDIRECT [[Târgu Frumos]]

Cool, huh? Dahn 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very cool! Is also very smart! --Moldo 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About my e-mail: writing it here would make it public forever, and I aim to avoid that after being cursed by a sizeable portion of Romanian chauvinists. We have two ways of getting passed that:

you give me yours (in case you want to make it public) and I write you with my address
you continue to write me on my page here, which I have enjoyed so far (don't worry, there is no requirement that you do it in English, if you feel weird talking to a Romanian in a foreign language). Dahn 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to give you my email adress, ok? You can see it now on my user page. It's kind of weird to adress to a Romanian in a foreign language. Moldo 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gata, ti-am trimis un mesaj de confirmare. Dahn 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L-am primit :) iti scriu acum Dan. --Moldo 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vreau sa te mai rog ceva. Wikipedia are o specificatie ca link-urile pentru acelasi cuvant sa nu apara la mai putin de "un ecran" distanta (sigur, masura e aproximativa), ca sa nu consume resurse si pentru ca sunt inutile altfel. (Eu chiar evit de regula sa leg un cuvant mai mult de o singura data per articol). Vezi: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Dahn 20:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've send it my email! --Moldo 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You now have a message on your mail. Reply here, or don't reply at all. Dahn 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dahn. I would like to reply on your mail please. May I? --Moldo 12:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]