User talk:Dahn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:06, 10 June 2009

Detail

Hi, while I entirely support your position on Moldavian rulers there is one minor detail I have to disagree in your statement [1]. Ciceu (and Cetatea de Balta) were never part of Moldavia, they were personal fiefs held by the princes of Moldavia as vassals of the King of Hungary. For details see the article I wrote on ro.wiki: [2]. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's a source you may find interesting (reed the footnote as well) [3]. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Eliade splitting proposal

You may or may not know that some users recently proposed splitting Mircea Eliade into subarticles. I don't have any particular problem with that idea. However, I'm a bit wary of leaving the project to users who haven't been the ones most involved in putting the article in its current form (i.e. you and me). If you have time, I'd be interested to hear your input on the talk page. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping-pong

Welcome back, Dahn; I'm most glad to see you here again. Once again my sincerest condolences and sympathy as you heal.

My own view is that the Vianu article is too rich to pass up. Congratulations, and as long as you avoid that paragraph, you should be fine.

The winds of change are blowing once again, though I don't know if the idea of 4-5 Rauls is a good one, but at least they're doing something after a couple of months of paralysis. (It was in fact an e-mail from me to Adi that set this latest episode in motion.) I see the first article nominated since then is OK - maybe not FA-level, but at least they're getting the idea of footnotes. Progress!

I say "ping-pong" because I have an annoying request myself, with a slight touch of urgency no less: Moldavian Revolution of 1848. At this point I'm not after a radical rewrite (though that's welcome if you so desire!), but rather DYK eligibility. That means multiple sources - shall we say say Djuvara and Giurescu? Essentially, your job would be to add in a few footnotes - for instance if Djuvara mentions the events of April 8-9, put in a note at the end of that paragraph; or one at the Dorinţele partidei section from Giurescu. I could probably even do something myself from our articles on Ghica and Kogălniceanu, but I prefer entrusting this to you, as you have the books yourself - right? Biruitorul ^Talk 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchins (presumably not an Orthodox) uses "Constantinople", which does appear in other writings on the Principalities, which was the official and international name (for instance, I just checked and found that the NYT first used "Istanbul" in 1928), and which is still used by modern sources to refer to the city for as late as 1920, but be that as it may.

Anyway, on the substantive issue - take your time (4-5 days remain), and thank you for whatever you may come up with.

It does seem I'm less radioactive with the ro.wiki people. Things seem more congenial there since the departure of this man and his associates, but I must say I found this comment of his highly amusing - to begin with, "wiki" is not English, but Hawaiian.

What's your opinion on my historic monuments query? I'd be glad to know.

Things have been fairly quiet on the Romanian front, though we now have articles on the Fortifications of Bucharest, Capital punishment in Romania and, dearest to me, Vin americanii! (I didn't think I could manage an article on such an intangible subject, but there you go.) Ah, and the Moldova business continues. See for instance this edit - I can accept that culture east of the Prut differs in certain respects from west (though some actual sources would be nice), but it's this pretence that the two have absolutely nothing in common that's maddening. For instance the claim that "interwar Romanian rule brought Romanianization campaigns" - against Slavs, maybe, just as happened against Hungarian institutions in Transylvania; but just as no one accuses the post-1918 government of conducting "Romanianization campaigns" against Transylvania's Romanians, so too I think it's difficult to claim Romania was seeking to "Romanianize" the Moldovans/Romanians. Actually they didn't much care about them either way. But the reader is left with the impression that the Prut forms an impregnable wall of separation and that Bucharest suddenly came in to impose its culture on native people there, which is, shall we say, a bit misleading. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and these are the towns in Hotin Raion, none of which looks like Cofa (which means "bucket" in the Slavic languages as well, complicating searches). That would imply it's a village, unless it has a totally different name in Ukrainian. Do you see it here? I don't... My advice, at least for now, would be to ask a Ukrainian for some help - Ostap R, Horlo, DDima. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And...all I can say is I offer more condolences and thank you :) --Kuaichik (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dear, I've only just returned as well, although my absence was for much happier reasons. Biru told me about your loss and I can only offer my sincerest condolences, I'm terribly sad to hear that you've had to go through such a tragedy. The dead sleep in the peace of the Eternal, the living remember them and honor them. All my best wishes, K. Lásztocska^talk 06:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite nice, generally--the weather was atrociously schizophrenic, and there was much more culture shock than I anticipated, but generally I enjoyed myself. The opera tour was exhausting though, it's good to be done with that....

You've reminded me, time to upload some nice PD photos. :) K. Lásztocska^talk 13:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Well, Mr.Dahn, I don't think so! Why I chosed google pages? Because there are too many sources that should be wrote. You say you're from Romania. Haven't you heard about 'Gândul'? Sorry, but you made a mistake! I was obiective. I demand apologises!--Rastronomer (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demand away. If you continue to misinterpret citations and ignore the most basic of wikipedia rules, I will demand your "apologises" for making administrators review your behavior "obiectively". Wanna bet you'll be blocked as a result? Now be gone. Dahn (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Want to loose?--Rastronomer (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roma minority

I've taken the bold step and removed anything I saw to be positive or negative bias. Might need a bit of expansion, but I implore you to keep the article neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Cofa

Hi. Here is what I think. This map says "Cofa Ukraine". 48° 31' 0 N, 26° 43' 0 E. This map says Konovka other name Cofa, and also 48° 31' 0N, 26° 43' 0E. So I think the city is Konovka Chernivtsi Oblast Kelmenetskyi Raion, which has an entry on Ukrainian wikipedia Коновка. I hope that helps, please re-check to make sure. Ostap 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anatol E. Baconsky DYK

On 25 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anatol E. Baconsky, 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.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problem

Dear friend, On Giuseppe Ungaretti I've a problem with your phrase on Ermetismo and Fascism: "(Ungaretti remained)...a supporter of his Blackshirts and National Fascist Party". Ungaretti became a friend of Mussolini (but when he was socialist), and formally U. subscribes the manifesto of the Fascist Italian writers, but, as explained on the biography of Piccioni, in spite of the friendiship with M., he was not a supporter of his Blackshirts and National Fascist Party, and sometimes he was imprisoned for subversive talkings against Fascism (also if every time Mussolini set free him). So I think it'ld be right to delete that phrase, and insert only: "Ungaretti joined in the Fascist Party signing the Manifesto of the Italian Writers". Tell me what do you think about. Ciao --Egonon (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1848 revolution

Not to worry - it did make DYK. By the way, a question for when you return. I was thinking of how we should eventually approach the 1848 revolution in Transylvania. Indeed I have a fairly complete article on the Blaj Assemblies, but as I worked I found it's quite hard to separate them from the history of the revolution as a whole. And then the Simion Bărnuţiu article ... evolved, and now includes a section on each Assembly. So I suppose the first priority is to decide how to address the changes to the Bărnuţiu article, and then how to approach the revolution as a whole. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But first, please read below. Dahn (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Well, I'm off myself for a while, but if you'd like an exercise that requires only low-to-moderate mental exertion, I've now started articles (well, "articles") on each and every commune in Romania. That means the 31 communes here, most or all of these, and these should be ready for merging. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was actually wondering what was afoot, but I assumed you'd be back soon, and it's great to hear that. Good luck fixing your computer; I'm sure we'll have plenty to discuss in the coming weeks. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I may as well make a few points now before I forget them:

1. Interestingly, my grandfather, born a month before Baconsky, also attended Alecu Russo High School from 1936-44, and the two remained good friends until the latter's death. My grandfather helped bury Baconsky, and I see no place of burial is given in the article - I've forgotten myself already, but it's in Bucharest (not Bellu).

2. Speaking of cemeteries, I paid two visits to Ghencea cemetery of late, in search of the grave of the protesters killed in the monarchist demonstration of 8 November 1945 (it's on the lists of the Ministry of Culture). Half a dozen people (administrators included) gave me either blank stares or curt dismissals. Maybe in half a century they'll publish a brochure, and in another century have a website. Meanwhile, albeit with no picture, maybe I could start an article - Cioroianu mentions it, as does a biography of the King. Both of my grandmothers were sixteen at the time - one, then in Bucharest, still recalls the perception that it was a key stage in the silencing of the opposition, while the other, then in Brăila, took part in a large march of schoolchildren, students and workers shouting "Re-ge-le Mi-hai! Re-ge-le Mi-hai!" (A classmate noticed an agent taking down student identification numbers, and quickly ripped the armband off my grandmother.) Anyway: should this article be born, what title would you suggest? "8 November 1945 demonstration in Bucharest" sounds awfully prosaic; "Saint Michael's day protest", while nicer, is unfortunately a neologism.

3. I've put up a picture of the Rondul Român (plus the sculptures therein) - would that be a good fit for the Cişmigiu Gardens article? The "Buildings to the south, as seen from the park" picture is a duplicate, and anyway the gallery seems a bit repetitive. Your call.

4. On Armand Călinescu. First, his monument now looks like this instead of this - probably not worth using in the article, right? But, if you're interested, I've uploaded these pages ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8] - "All Sizes" to magnify). Reference: Nicolae Chivulescu, Armand Călinescu, om de stat şi conducător de ţară, Bucharest, Editura Lucman, 2005, ISBN 973-8465-98-2. Not vital, but does give some interesting tidbits like how he lost his eye or the high school he attended. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to everyone and another notice

I must have seemed inconsiderate to all the people who have waited for me to reply to their messages over these past weeks - in particular Plinul, Biruitorul, KL, and Egonon (but also all those who have contacted me elsewhere). I apologize to all of you for not being able to keep as steady a presence as I would have otherwise and for only prioritizing edits which took the least concentration and effort (which should explain my sporadic presence these last days). I had a rough time in real life (as some of you may already know), have had some computer problems, and I'm leaving town for the next week. I really do miss wiki activity and wish I could get back sooner, but I unfortunately cannot promise a more regular and implicated presence until around August 20.

Also, please don't let this disclaimer prevent you from engaging in discussions here or posting messages related to any subject I might take interest in. I will do my best to weigh in on all those issues, even if it may come with a serious delay. Please accept my warmest regards, and do keep in touch. Dahn (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capisco

I understand your intellectual objections (and sorry for my "technical" difficulties on the notes, but I'm a new entry on wiki:) , and I know that my sources are older than Picchione & Smith (I studied U. and Italian literature of '900 for five years, but especially in 1970). But I read all the works of U., and his message is of love, mercy, universal understanding: so I'm trying to write a "Poetica" after your biography, and I'ld be happy if you help me or write together with me on this way. I'm old, but I can learn by you the same every day:) Ciao--Egonon (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, I thank you so much for your words, and advices. Arrivederci, --Egonon (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Domenico Pellegrini Giampietro

I have nominated Domenico Pellegrini Giampietro, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenico Pellegrini Giampietro. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Thanks, Ain lina (box)? 08:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New thread

Before I reply to your points (which I shall), I should note that I started this partly in anticipation at the brilliant comment you'd no doubt make there. This route seems a lost cause, but those who have tried reforming WP:ATHLETE have also been unsuccessful so far... Biruitorul ^Talk 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeexcelent. For the Law Faculty, is this what you meant? There's also (this and this - I could ask the creators to release them under a free license). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad to hear that. There's a fire waiting to be put out... Biruitorul ^Talk 15:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I posted a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romani people#Help needed. Please have a look. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian workers sport organisation in 1931?

Hi. Do you know what is the name of the Romanian affiliate of the Socialist Workers' Sport International, mentioned on http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH2001/JSH2801/JSH2801d.pdf, page 24? --Soman (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao!

Ahoj! Maybe you oculd help me with my new Giorgio Bocca article which had been immediately marked as poor written! WAAAH! Thanks and good work! --Attilios (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I agree with you on the whole line. If you sign a Fascist manifesto, you ARE a fascist... then you can change idea or whatever. So we must list it as he deserves. Returning to Bocca, thanks much for your corrections. Hope the article will improve on the way. Let's see (if you're interested, there's a new expansion of mine - this time from... FRENCH... I'm frightened by the results I could have had) at Jean Pierre de Laclos. Ciao and good work. --Attilios (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if I may intrude on this thread (and a hearty welcome back, Dahn), and speaking of fascism, here is a great series of articles -- especially "Regele cîrmaci" and the next three or so. It's striking not so much the extent to which Carol's dictatorship resembled other European countries of the time (which isn't that surprising), but rather a later Romanian dictatorship, which seems to have borrowed liberally from some of the imagery and language he used, despite its very different ideological underpinnings. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Biru, and it's good to be back - this time it's for real, right after I catch up with my backlog. I wholeheartedly concur: there is a manifest connection between the two, and this article only just begins to give a glimpse into what authors have said about the subject (and, of course, what any informed persons can see for themselves). And this would be just a small part of the wider discussion on the connections between Ceauşism and fascism (it also involves Corneliu Vadim Tudor, Iosif Constantin Drăgan, Jean Thiriart and Petre Ţuţea, to name but a few). Maybe, once we do something about the core subject, we could consider making this discussion an article on its own? Dahn (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I was just thinking the other day, though: is there a biography of him (in either language) free of polemic, hagiography, conspiracy theories, myth? It took 17 years for such a work to be produced on the Revolution, so I have to wonder.

As for the Protopopescu issue: I must say I lean to the cautious side in classing someone as a "victim", so I tend to concur with you. And since we have the category, we should fill it, and perhaps write an explanatory heading there attempting to define what a "victim" is. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right - no biography, but plenty of potpourri, and yes, it's the pre-1965 material that will be more difficult to find but potentially quite compelling (eg his role in collectivization (another article ripe for expansion); how did he get to the top will be an interesting question to answer and, by the way, one of his key rivals, the Last of the Mohicans, is still looking sharp at 95).

I'll see if I can do anything - I/we also have this to figure out what to do with. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and by the way, this is highly amusing. One wonders: is the state too busy to carry out these executions itself; indeed, has it not gone out of that business altogether? And what have these passengers done to merit such a fate? Surely they are accorded habeas corpus? If this is its "main object of activity", what about other objects? Are car drivers subject to the same "activity"? Horse riders? Really, it's a most interesting company, a niche no one had yet thought of filling. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's from this year, done on his 95th birthday by NPCR. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell if nPCR is just one guy in a room, or if they have any real-world significance. I agree we should have a "legacy" section there, but the main exponent of the radical left in the last 20 years has been the PSM, and we still don't have an article on that (which seems more of a priority).

Incidentally, something I meant to ask you while you were away: I've revamped the List of universities in Romania, but one task I found quite difficult was determining a date of establishment for some schools. A famous example would be Babeş-Bolyai: the university has 1581 on its seal, but what was established in 1581 has essentially nothing in common with today's institution, which more or less was born in 1872 (though Babeş-Bolyai as such didn't come about until 1959). So I put in two dates for some, but I don't know if that's always the best solution. Anyway, I suppose I don't have a specific question; just something to look out for. (Oh, and I was considering having a section for former universities: do you know of any others beside the Ştefan Gheorghiu Academy?) Biruitorul ^Talk 02:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, no problem. The article does, however, say he was born there, but it's probably based on the JN archives, now sadly gone. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep them coming. Keep 'em coming, I said! -- Biruitorul ^Talk 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was eagerly awaiting these two. Funny, no mention of this, this, this, this, him, him, him... Biruitorul ^Talk 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biserica Neagră

Hello, quite honestly I don't find my ref formatting very different from what was used until then: in any case, when the full bibliographic details are given, cite templates should be used, and for a single footnote it wouldn't fit to include that info in "References". As for the German source I've added, indeed, it's what Balkanski has cited and I have no access to it and its full bibliographic data.

I don't see how Cyrillic's wrong either — having to include transliterations/translations is tedious, listing names in Latin and the title in Cyrillic is mixing up and doesn't really appeal to me, and if one's to read the book, they'd have to be able to read Bulgarian Cyrillic anyway.

As for Kroraina/Promacedonia, don't be fooled, these are just an online library of sorts, not political websites or anything, they just republish some scanned and OCR-ed books online. I don't see how citing a published source fails WP:RS, the link to the "web edition" is just for easy access by the reader, and Balkanski is a well-respected scholar in that field. If you don't like that easy access, you can remove the link, but that won't help anyone.

I'm sorry if the small differences in the reference formatting have bothered you, personally, I don't quite find it such a big deal, but I can understand your pedantry :) All the best and keep up the good work, Todor →Bozhinov 10:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, keeping all the citations uniformly formatted is an important matter, and I understand your remarks fully. Promacedonia and Kroraina are two mirrors of the same online library assembled by the same person. Both texts (Miletich's and Balkanski's) have been published (as have been all books on those websites), and both are very eminent scholars (Miletich is one of my favourite researchers in terms of topics of interest and treatment, if that matters). In particular, Miletich's study on the late medieval Slavic documents from Romania was published in 1896 and the author died in 1937, so it should be public domain. Now, Balkanski's scanned book from 1996 is technically a copyvio, but I see the websites as an online library of some sort, and I have no problem with that personally. Whether such publications should be linked from Wikipedia is another thing, but that has little to do with the credibility of both publications, which is beyond doubt.

Don't worry about anything, it's OK to discuss that and your remarks are absolutely reasonable. I also greatly enjoy your articles and the way you work has always impressed me. The current trend to co-operate across the Danube is very admirable: as you said, we did indeed have a lot in common, and we all need to work together to kick misconceptions out.

By the way, the Black Church has one of the most awe-inspiring entrance gates I've seen. I'm totally in love with practically all the old architecture of Romania (from the Putna and Neamţ monasteries through the wooden churches and vernacular architecture to the fortified villages and Gothic and Baroque influences in Transylvania). I'm definitely going to visit all those places some day, but at the moment I lack the time and resources for such a journey :) Todor →Bozhinov 12:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would be the best possible solution to reach out and co-operate. We all have to look beyond the stereotypes and inveterate viewpoints of our past in order to work together effectively. I'm trying to do that with contributors of all nationalities, but it is not always easy: for some contributors, particularly Turks and Macedonians, keeping the feelings aside is a difficult thing.

I'm not entirely sure whether the Cyrillic approach is the best one—but it does its job, it is trustable and it can't be done wrongly, unlike transliteration and frivolous translation.

I've heard a lot of good comments about Sibiu and it does look better preserved than Braşov. They don't seem to be that far apart, however, in order to choose between them: the choice would most likely be between Moldavia + Maramureş or Banat. I won't miss central Transylvania and for the time being Bucharest is a must not just because it is a must-see, but because one has to go all the way east to Rousse to use the Danube bridge. But who knows, by the time I'm ready to go we might have the bridge at Vidin completed. We urgently have to build more bridges, both literally and figuratively ;)

Plovdiv owns Sofia in pretty much every respect… I don't really like Sofia. I don't know how it appears to visitors, but for someone who's bound to living and commuting there, it's a nightmare. The epithets "grown ugly, dirty, flashy, exhausting and aggravating" I'd apply to Sofia without even thinking about it. In particular, the local transport is appalling, traffic jams are the rule rather than the exception, and every type of popular public transport is usually overcrowded. Yeah, there are the nice spots like the parks, Vitosha and some quieter areas in the city centre (like around the City Garden), but overall the city won't ever appeal to me. But then again, I don't think most other capitals around here are any different. At least ours have their heritage and sights, unlike some other capital cities in the region.

Maybe you're right about the sort-of "commercialization" of that traditional architecture—anything that is overused can get dull and annoying. It's just that for me as an outsider it's something unique and rarely-seen because our vernacular and church architecture is very different in many aspects. There are a few "Romanian Revival" buildings left in Silistra and Dobrich, but that comes nowhere near representing all the varieties and styles and especially not the church architecture.

It's curious that you have that slight Bulgarian connection, and it's very interesting that the yes and no instincts have outlived the language in that case. I have no idea where that inversion came from, I thought it was shared by the Greeks too but I'm not sure about that and I found no confirmation. It's weird and it probably deserves an article of its own :) Todor →Bozhinov 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I know what you mean by drifting out, it tends to happen to me too :P As for Southern Dobruja — I'd have to agree with you, I don't think its annexation by Romania was very reasonable. I think it was the Russian compensation for the annexation of Bessarabia , which as a region had a significant Romanian past. There were few Romanians in the south, the Christian population was mostly Bulgarian with sizable Turkish and Tatar subregions. But yeah, sea access was crucial to any country at the time: Romania was already growing in power and who would miss the chance to retain an outlet on the Black Sea :) After all, Constanţa is today one of Europe's best ports, much more frequented than our Varna.

Yeah, the repression of Muslims in communist Bulgaria was a shameful thing; but its effects should not be misjudged by Turkish nationalists: it is a topic that has to be rationally examined. Turks seem to underestimate the effect ot the Armenian, Pontic and Eastern Thracian massacres and overestimate the effect of the renaming and eviction campaigns of the Bulgarian communists. But that is understandable.

Honestly, the Balchik Palace is indeed kitschy, but I guess that's how Bahá'í see beauty... Don't worry, Sofia has terrible traffic jams too :) It's true that your Ceauşescu was a megalomaniac: Zhivkov was a simple peasant but at least he wasn't that obsessed with power. I've passed through Belgrade and it has some megalomaniac tower blocks and communist stuff that we don't have here, so I guess Tito was a bit on the crazy side as well. The Palace in Bucharest isn't that bad, it has some decent looks unlike the repetitive panelkas; Stalinism isn't as bad as brutalism in my view. Tearing down the mausoleum was a pretty comic event; it had its critics, but overall I think it was a good decision, the building was plain ugly and Bulgaria isn't Egypt so we don't keep mummies out of museums :D

Vitosha is cool though, it's a great retreat from the frantic life in the city. I'm planning a downhill bike ride there at some point :P But Dealul Mitropoliei seems like a nice place too, and the Wallachian style is so obviously different from the Moldavian style if I might add :) Todor →Bozhinov 12:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabi Bucuresti

Nu stiu de unde aveti informatiile legate de acest club, dar eu am cartea oficiala a federatiei, Anuarul fotbalului romanesc, in care specifica clar, nu a fost nici o fuziune intre Maccabi si Unirea Tricolor. Ambele au fost preluate de catre MAI, prima fiind redenumita Dinamo A, iar cea de-a doua Dinamo B. Prima va fi cunoscuta in continuare drept Dinamo (cea de azi), iar a doua vai fi cunoscuta in continuare drept Dinamo Brasov...a fost mutata in alt oras ca sa poata evolua in Divizia A. In 1956 a fost mutata iar, de data asta la Cluj, pentru ca un an mai tarziu sa fie desfiintata, iar lotul de jucatori sa fie mutat la Bacau.

De la Fălticeni

Vă mulţumesc mult domnule Dan pentru răspuns şi pentru încurajarea de a participa constructiv la grandiosul proiect Wikipedia şi vă cer încă o dată mii de scuze.

     Cu respect    Fălticeni  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falticeni (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your kind words. I do however believe that I have added relatively little quality content on ro.wiki. I have done more in removing unsuitable content. Unfortunately, health and professional issues prevent me from having a more active role on either wiki. I was going to my opinion on this: [9] but I don't have the strength right now. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poezii

There may indeed be hundreds of books of this title, but while Wikipedia only has an article about the one, it should, according to the Naming Convention, have the undisambiguated title until an article is created for another one. But I won't move it back again, as I see your point! (WP:IAR) Actually, looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), it ought to be just the surname... Have sorted it out, and also Excelsior (Macedonski) PamD (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember titling it Poezii with the year in parentheses (18... ). If I did not title it like that, it is a case of pressing "save" before realizing how I titled it. I do not even like Macedonski's poetry. I was doing that at the time (mid August), creating articles for three of his volumes or such, because I was looking for something to busy myself with in Wikipedia. I came back to Wikipedia after a hiatus and was out of synch. A is putting the smack down (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like some of his poems. I usually do my best to appreciate a work of art/literature/music etc. and learn something from it. What I learn from poems that I don't like is what to avoid in my own writings. Often works of art are interesting for their place in history, what they reveal about sociology, aesthetics, psychology, language, etc. Sometimes poems that I don't like almost fascinate me; I re-read them to identify what I don't like. For example there is this poem by Yves Bonnefoy titled "Here, still here" (in English translation). When I read that poem I feel like re-writing it. A is putting the smack down (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obviously there are some works (paintings etc.) I ignore or don't give much attention to, either because they are grotesque, disturbing, or...some Manele or American country song I'd rather not waste time appreciating when I can appreciate something else :) However when it comes to poetry, nothing is really grotesque I would argue, the word would be awful. Poems are an art form I can enjoy even if a poem is bad. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rimbaud has a paragraph (English translation):

"What I liked were: absurd paintings, pictures over doorways, stage sets, carnival backdrops, billboards, bright-colored prints, old-fashioned literature, church Latin, erotic books full of misspellings, the kind of novels our grandmothers read, fairy tales, little children's books, old operas, silly old songs, the naive rhythms of country rimes."

I first came across this paragraph (and across Rimbaud) in 1998. It was written in 1873. I completely related to it and enjoyed the paragraph. Aside from church Latin, I have a lot of the same interests :) Reading Macedonski (when I do read him) has that same attraction for me. Listening to Manele also has that attracion...I like some manele, like the one used as Borat's theme. A is putting the smack down (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject

Yes, I would join & contribute to such a project page or pages. I've already contributed here & there to such articles and will contribute further. I have been studying what is known as Symbolist literature since 1998 or so. About the same time I began studying Parnassian literature, although I haven't read a lot of Parnassian literature or criticism. I can however get or find a lot of that literature. My studies in symbolism in art and Art Nouveau go back further, because my father collected art and amassed a collection of books on the subject. I have in my garage alone numerous works I can use to contribute, and in Los Angeles you can find many good books on the subject. While I was exposed to symbolism in art (as opposed to literature) and to Art Nouveau many years before my discoveries in literature, I never studied the subjects with the level of interest that I studied the literature. Basically I was a kid/teenager reading my dad's art books and looking at the works he had acquired and discussing them. I have the books that my father bought in my garage. He's in Romania, but he left his books here. I have not yet read a lot of the Romanian work (George Bacovia etc.) mostly because the works were not readily available in Los Angeles and I would have had to go out of my way to find them. From the "symbolists" & "pre-symbolists" I have mostly read Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Mallarme, Verlaine, some Nerval, La Forgue. However the ones I have read I have read them (in English translation & original French) with an interest and an affinity that is apparently not that common these days. I have read a lot of post-symbolism :Guillaume Apollinaire (whose early work was symbolist and whose later works largely grew out of symbolism), the Surrealists, the Beats, the contemporaries etc. So yes, I am interested in contributing to those articles and projects. A is putting the smack down (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also like Art Deco artists such as Tamara de Lempicka. So the project would include Symbolism (arts), Parnassianism, and Art Nouveau, or would they be separate projects? A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roger Davies and User:Yllosubmarine would probably also be interested. They have listed themselves at Talk:Arthur Rimbaud. Although Arthur Rimbaud may be the single most prominent figure in symbolist literature, Arthur never referred to himself as a symbolist in writing, if at all. In fact him referring to himself as a symbolist seems contrary to his personality. And if you read his prose poems especially (the Illuminations) there is a lot of symbolism there, but there is also a lot of what we would now recognize as surrealism. In fact there is probably more surrealism in the Illuminations than there is symbolism. I don't recall the latest statements of literary critics regarding this, but I do have a quote on hand that explicitly mentions the Surrealists, not the Symbolists, as the "real heirs of Rimbaud". I believe it was Wallace Fowlie who wrote that, a well-known critic & translator in the field. A is putting the smack down (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template looks nice. I have never started a WikiProject before and you seem to be more familiar with arranging/setting up such a page. Yes Rimbaud definitely has to be included as part of the Symbolism Wikiproject, I opened the discussion regarding Rimbaud because I felt it would be better to put that discussion out there as we begin, and maybe other editors checking your talk page will read that. Secondary sources for Symbolist literature: Anna Balakian, Wallace Fowlie, Enid Starkie, etc. Anna Balakian is a major figure in Symbolist studies. I have a lot of books on Art Nouveau/Symbolism in my garage, and there is this volume I have called The Spiritual in Art, Abstract Painting, 1890---1985 published by LACMA, Abbeville Press which I recommend if anybody wants a nice work on the subject in their library. A is putting the smack down (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I started the project page. I'm not saying that I know more about symbolism than you (I think you may have written that earlier, that I know more about this subject; even if that were the case I do not know more about Romanian symbolism), although I may have read more of those authors I mentioned than you have, and I've been reading them for ten years now, so I'm familiar with them. However I have read mostly the French symbolists, not the Romanian, Russian, etc. And I have not read that much criticism or literary theorizing/essays on the subject. The criticism/essays I read were mostly in the form of introductions to the poetry in the various volumes, and commentary from the translators, etc. Or introductions and commentary in various anthologies. But I have not for example read a specific book by Anna Balakian about symbolism. I have to catch up on my Art Nouveau, that was awhile ago :) I need help with the project page. A is putting the smack down (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Now I'm kind of anxious to get it going so I can place the template on a lot of talk pages. It's fun, like organizing a stamp collection. What I want to do at Symbolism (arts) is really trace how after-the-fact Rimbaud and others came to often be classed as Symbolists. This will be a long-term project of mine. A is putting the smack down (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in the meanwhile I will begin putting the Project page together bit by bit. A is putting the smack down (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Project Page itself should be easy, but I don't know how to make templates. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could learn how to make a template, but doesn't it also require some programming code or something, I'm very unclear on this. You wrote that Macedonski was "the weirdo as far as our culture is concerned"---I never heard of that, but I haven't read much about him or heard much conversation about him. He was a weirdo I would agree. I really haven't read enough of his work to judge his art well. Many of his poems are dull (despite their quirkiness, the quirkiness often comes off as dull Paranassian quirkiness) in the manner of Francois Coppee and Louis-Xavier de Ricard, fellow Paranassian poets. Others are better. A is putting the smack down (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just design a template and then once it's finished you just place the template code on a talk page Template:WP etc. and it will work, no "programming" required? A is putting the smack down (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, some perspective on my "literary" tastes for Dahn and other readers: I think this poem by Theophile Gautier is very primitive and ineffective [10] (many of Macedonski's poems are similar to that). Baudelaire improved upon those kind of sentiments and produced poems that are more valuable. I don't like criticizing Macedonski's poetry too much because 1) I've read no more than 20 of his poems, I think 2) when I'm critizing Maceonski's work casually in Wikipedia (of course not in the article on him) the reader can't see my criticisms of Gautier, Coppee, de Ricard, etc. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians

Removing all 'Distinguish' headings from this page was an eminently sensible edit on your part. My intention in adding the 'Romans' cat. was to help illustrate the very point you made. RashersTierney (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not forget. I checked him, too. But she was more appealing. :) There is no way to confuse Romanians with an actor! Dc76\^talk 08:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An actor is composed of only one entity, the actor itself. While Romanians is composed of many entities (every particular Romanian, anywhere in the world), and Romano cheese is also not just one entity (you can not refer to a piece of Romano cheese as "the" Romano chese), but of many little pieces of Romano cheese around the world. I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding. :) Dc76\^talk 09:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vilna Troupe

I took a shot at what I could do about cleaning the citation apparatus without the book in hand. Take a look, tell me if it's OK (or not). - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattias Corvinus

Hi, I saw that in the article about Mattias Corvinus there are two possibilites mentioned about his father's (Iancu de Hunedoara) origin. The first is Romanian, backed by five sources, 3 out of 5 non-Romanian, and a fourth one which is a Romanian author writing about the works of an Italian humanist or diplomat, Ransano. The other origin proposed is Cumanian, and all five sources are in Hungarian and most seem like the kind of thing you write together with a friend over a bottle of beer. If I am wrong, please correct me, but please look at this part of the article. Thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with a Hungarian there and he explained some of the sources. You can still have a look at the article if you want, though, maybe you can bring something positive to it. Again thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All hail the cabinets!

Ach! I was hopeful we would be able to live without these, that the templates would suffice, but I guess not. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 17:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion on this right now, but you may be interested in this proposal. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 17:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A full reply is forthcoming, but meanwhile, did you see this!? One could spend hours browsing that, even with my very weak German. I wish the Romanians would do something similar, but I'm not holding my breath. Ah, and any thoughts on Victor Marius Beliciu, Haralamb H. Georgescu, Bogdan Bacanu, Dan Stoenescu, George Draga, Dumitru Fărcaş, Andras Chiriliuc, Ciprian Preda, Andrei Markovits, Ervin Acél, Alexandru Moisuc? I could see a bunch of those being deleted at AfD, with others requiring drastic cleanup.

I highly appreciate the barnstar and yes, I did start every one of the communes - not too entertaining, but I did it so we could then eliminate the villages. The remaining villages are at Category:Communes and villages in Romania, Category:Communes and villages in Transylvania, Category:Villages in Cluj County; anything you can merge would be helpful. The only one I'd be a little careful about is Giurtelecu Şimleului: obviously the author has worked quite hard on it, and we'd want to let him know before moving it to Măerişte.

Question: is Colegiu Naţional better given as "National College" or "High School"? The second sounds more natural in English, but the first is more literal, and in any case Liceu means something slightly different - so it's what I used in practice. It would be useful to hear your opinion going forward, and we should go forward: right now, Category:High schools in Romania is still pretty empty (we have, incredibly, nothing on high schools in Cluj, Braşov, Iaşi, Sibiu or Timişoara, for example), and most of what we do have is of rather poor quality. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed an iceberg: how could one forget Doru Popovici, Mircea Ciugudean, Eugen Gondi, Florin Barbu? And one wishes Iulia Antoanella Moţoc wasn't ex officio notable as a member of the Human Rights Committee, because really. By the way, any thoughts regarding the revert war I just discovered surrounding Mihai Suba? With Brâncuşi and Comăneci now both having diacritics, it seems a bit odd to pick him as the one person who'll be denied them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet AfD'd any of those guys, but I know you'll enjoy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peru–Romania relations.

Empty categories are liable for deletion anyway, so I'd say the priority should be on merging the villages rather than eliminating the categories (which also help us keep track of what's left to do). On Giurtelec, I quite agree it's largely a mess, it's just that we ideally don't want the author to create too much of a stir. (I thought he'd left Wikipedia, but then he came back and kept starting articles. Some, like Alexander Ratiu (not Raţiu?), Valerian Stan or Emil Pop are a bit blah, but it's nice that he finally started something on Emil Hurezeanu.)

The Chad story is indeed a strange one: it seems that, just as Romania aspires to be a mini-France in other areas, it has its own Françafrique too, despite not having had colonies there (an interesting what-if, though: what if a couple of African countries had been Romania's?).

I've e-mailed you on the COI issue; let me know if you've read my message. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fine new article: Danubian Europe - possible target for AfD.
By the way, I noticed something we appear to lack. We have a Category:Romanian senators but no category for other legislators. How would Category:Members of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies (I'd include the pre-1948 Assembly of Deputies members here too) and Category:Members of the Great National Assembly do? I'm open to other suggestions as well.
21 copies! - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your breath no longer. Granted, one wishes for many more of these sorts of archival photos to be available, but it's a great start. Indeed let me praise the Institute in general on this score: they've been uploading penal dossiers, and they've published a thorough account of the Communist prison system. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, take all the time you need. I'm well aware of my own decline in productivity, having done just two articles in the past two months, but I expect to ramp up activity in the new year. Meanwhile, keep up the good work on Vilna and whatever else you may be preparing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just some edits... back "there"

Hi, should you have the time, please look at this. It's not really my field and I have so little time that I'm just letting it be. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "papist"

My apologies for that; lately I haven't been very active at DYK during the week, so this one must have flown under my radar. It looks like the hook was promoted in this update and, as you pointed out, it had not been verified by anyone (also, as far as I can tell, it wasn't even expiring, and there were a lot of older hooks that had been verified...so I'm not sure why it was picked). Davidwr had said he preferred the ALT, but no one had explicitly verified.

In these situations I generally like to ~~strike out~~ old hooks when I'm proposing a better one or pointing out a specific problem with a hook, just because when people move hooks to Next they are often in a hurry and (I'm guilty of this too) grab things quickly and might accidentally take the wrong hook; putting <s></s> around the bad hooks, I think, helps make it easier to tell they shouldn't be taken. There's not a DYK rule about it or anything, but I think it's good practice.

As for the promotion of the hook...I feel bad even bringing this up, because Orlady is an excellent contributor and reviewer and has much more experience at DYK than I do, but, that being said, I have seen him promoting non-verified hooks a couple times before. I might leave him a friendly message if no one has done so already. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, at least, it looks like the wording has been fixed sometime after your message, because "papist" wasn't there when I checked this morning. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've responded to this issue on my talk page. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alexandru Macedonski

On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexandru Macedonski, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done!!!!!!!! The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vilna Troupe, redux

Nice work. I'm making some edits. Question: "the recrudescence of antisemitic manifestations": do you really want "manifestations" or is that a false cognate? Do you perhaps mean "demonstrations"? "Manifestations" in English is rather vague (more or less "things that comes into being", "things that crop up"). "Demonstrations" encompasses things like political rallies. In any case, if you really want "manifestations", you probably want to reword so that you don't use "in manifest contrast" in the same sentence. - Jmabel | Talk 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Shows produced under the Vilna Troupe name were also staged after 1927." Does this mean "Shows continued to be produced in Bucharest under the Vilna Troupe name even after 1927," or does it mean something else? - Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sever Voinescu

On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sever Voinescu, 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.

Orlady 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Romanian electoral system

Hi Dahn! Yes, I have indeed made a comeback to Wikipedia, even though I don't think I will have a lot of time for editing. The new Romanian electoral system seems to me to be insanely difficult to understand. At the same time, I think it parallels some other systems existing throughout Europe. I have read mixed member proportional representation (MMPR) in detail and it seems that there are several systems which qualify as MMPR. In some MMPR systems, like that of Germany, voters cast two separate votes: one constitutency vote ("uninominal") and one party-list vote. Under this system, a single candidate only needs a plurality (not a majority) of votes to win. This is not the case in Romania, where there is no party list vote and where only candidates who gain an outright majority win their seat, with the remainder of votes going through a redistribution process. However, I don't believe that these differences disqualify the Romanian system from being MMPR; having two separate votes is not a necessary condition for MMPR. As the article points out, there are many differences between MMPR systems in the world. What appears to me to be a defining characteristic of MMRP is the combination between the existence individual candidates in individual constituencies and redistribution of existing votes to maintain relative proportionality. Thus, I will add the link back to the article. Ronline ✉ 06:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing political biographies is against Wikipedia policies as well

Cornel Nistorescu almost killed two people and you censoring looks more like the Old communistic ways of dealing with less pleasant facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.24.132 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gas Heart

Please stop restoring the French-language titles to The Gas Heart - Wikipedia naming conventions dictate that all titles should appear in English translation. This includes a quotation from French in which the rest of the quotation has been translated into English. If you are unsure, please consult the manual of style. Kind regards, DionysosProteus (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend

Yes good to see you are still producing detailed!!! articles which are articles I prefer. The meatier the better in my book. I recently translated Tenerife which is again the sort of full article I like. Yes i have been a bit tied the last few months but I have created a Template:Expand Romanian which is to be applied only to articles I create or articles which are missing a great deal of content. Obviously we want to use primary sources and probably in places Romania wikipedia is biased or not fully reliable but it is just intended to expand the short articles I create or to at least improve Romanian coverage on wiki. It will automatically place them in Category:Romanian articles needing translation. This may include writers or any Romanian articles though. Best The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gas Heart

I have reverted the edits you have made to The Gas Heart since I was unable to disentange which were further improvements and which were reverts to the original shoddy state. The original article was very poorly written--often reading like a bad example of an undergraduate essay--and contained errors and inaccuracies. I have gone through the sources and examined them against the claims they allegedly support in the article and made many corrections. I have provided details of most of them on the article's talk page. I have also added new information and further sources. I updated the reference-system because the previous one certainly wasn't clear. Removal of redlinks is Wikipedia policy - consult the manual of style. Any information appearing in the article requires a citation to prove it; this applies to information in end-notes as well as that in the main body. Finally, as I hope you are aware, you do not own the article, despite having contributed to it, and it is not necessary to consult you before improving it. If you wish to improve it further, it could certainly do with it, but my recent edits should form the basis of that, since now it is well-sourced, accurate, and much clearer and better-written. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A video just for information

[11] Dc76\^talk 15:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Well, belatedly. But above all, do return! I hope it's nothing serious again. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roma as a Romani group

There are discussion for the creation of an article about Roma as a Romani group, but there are some problems about the best way to do that. Can you take a look, if you have the time, please? The discussion are mostly at Talk:Roma people. Thanks! AKoan (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Romanians

Readers shouldn't take Wikipedia as a proof of anything, the tags are excessive, 4 of them stacked on top of the page, I bet that's the reason they were removed. Can we find one or at most two tags that express what you want without crapifying the entire experience for Wiki readers? Thanks. man with one red shoe 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand those points, but I think it would be better if we'd just remove obvious OR instead of adding the tags. man with one red shoe 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody got to be bold. man with one red shoe 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New thread

Great to have you back! I know the Tzara episode was highly frustrating (at least I got an absurd {{unreferenced}} tag off the biography), and I kept drafting a message to ask you to return, as recently as two days ago. Luckily, you've spared me that task.

1. Categories now exist: time to fill them up!

2. Not that much happened during your break, although it's spreading! And: guess who? Oh, and that thrilling debate is back -- stand by. Ah, and Social structure of Romania... (Also, did you take note of the recent additions to the Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu article?)

3. Unfortunately, Şubă is likely to remain Suba for the time being, given this debate. Troubling, but that's that. I guess Moţoc is notable and expandable, but given this (diacritics used everywhere else), it may just be her name is Motoc.

4. Very interesting and worth pursuing, if at all possible, this notion of an African empire for Romania, but as you say, Romania itself was somewhat of an imperial possession, not to mention Dobrogea (I linked to an article on that once, but seem to have lost the link).

5. I agree the Fototeca name is ungrammatical, and will support any effort to change it. Speaking of original research: can we say this is a Lipovan? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all counts, and yes, that was the link. That Antonescu editor is one of those guys you just hope disappears, but he unfortunately keeps returning. And I'd forgotten: Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919. I asked the author for citations a couple of times, but seem to have been turned down. Regardless of its other issues, English-language sources consistently refer to the episode as an "intervention" or an "invasion", so perhaps a move might be appropriate sometime down the line. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how could I have forgotten? This link will be useful in sorting things out. I've let him know, so hopefully some progress can be made. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a much lighter note, I see the following are still redlinks: Elena Udrea, Elena Băsescu, Maria Băsescu, Mona Muscă, Raluca Turcan, Ecaterina Andronescu, Miron Mitrea, Viorel Hrebenciuc, Victor Babiuc, Răzvan Theodorescu, Octav Cozmâncă, Ludovic Orban, Sorin Ovidiu Vântu and, best of all, Ristea Priboi. I once tried to write Maria Băsescu's biography, but didn't get very far. Oh, and how about Disappearance of Elodia Ghinescu? If she were British, she'd surely have an article, but as I like to say, we're an encyclopedia, not tabloid trash, so it's just as well she doesn't.
By the way, considering the unexpected source, this is a surprisingly fresh account. It does, frustratingly, skip over some important stuff (like 1957-65 -- but hey, we skip 1954-65), but it may be something to hold on to. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One further point: not the belabor the subject, but I'm sure this will be of some interest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Europe

Thank you for your comments. I've replied there, although not in quite such a lengthy manner as yours. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor

You should perhaps report this bug. It would imporve the bot. Dc76\^talk 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are hereby invited to contribute a paper to an international conference. :) Dc76\^talk 00:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about a slightly less onerous task: what do you think of this sterile edit war? Personally, I prefer the 1910 & 1930 census data because a) even if there was a census in 1920 (which seems a bit dubious), its results are bound to have been distorted by war, dislocation, refugee flows, etc. b) whatever one says about the other sources, the 1910 and 1930 censuses were both assuredly more reliable (though flawed, especially the 1910 one) and appear in Livezeanu, again a more authoritative source, it would seem. In any case, we certainly don't need numbers for 1910, 1920 and 1930 in there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that article is dispiriting, just like that perennial sore point, Romanians. Over 60,000 people look at it every month (a somewhat addictive took, I hasten to add), so for that, and for its own sake, it really deserves better than the current crew who are monopolizing it. Oh, and let's not even start on John Hunyadi and Csangos, also subject to the same endless, petty wars. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Meanwhile, I'm slightly concerned by Romania and the Mongol Invasion of 1241. The troubles keep mushrooming. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you write a suitably incisive AfD nomination, yes. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happily, Mentatus and I have nearly finished the Great Village Merger. However, an interesting question has arisen: are 2 Mai (now merged) and Vama Veche notable on their own, or purely as communes of Limanu? If the former, should we perhaps remove the villages category and keep just the Black Sea resorts one? That's what they really are notable for, although they are villages too. Any input would be valued.

Of the other villages, just Giurtelec could pose a problem. If you do take a break from your excellent VT work, feel free to use the tool on the right to cut it down before merging. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh.

Heh! Between that, wrecking stuff and writing about his friends, that man should definitely be introduced to WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:V, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume I was inadvertently blocked because I moved a page. An apology would have been nice, but whatever. I've seen worse, like a few months ago when Moldopodo (remember him?) accused me on ANI of being Bonaparte, and an administrator prominent there said, "ask Mikka, he can spot a Bonny sock from a mile away". I don't expect everyone to know who I am, but a cursory check of the record would not have been too difficult. Or the comments of this ilk you'll doubtless see at my next RfA (whenever that is): "I feel something boiling under the skin of the candidate, and have the feeling it may come out at the wrong time" -- I love the notion that I'm a lunatic who's been carefully biding his time for a couple of years, ready to wreak all sorts of havoc if I can only get my fingers on the admin button. (It's not like admins can't be blocked too, for one.)

Mirgheca has just over 1500 contributions in the mainspace. The ones directly related to Giurtelec are Giurtelecu Şimleului, Timeline of Giurtelecu Şimleului history and Religions in Giurtelecu Şimleului. Coasta lui Damian might be notable. Borla, Sălaj needs merging; Tiszapolgár needs work. Grigore Lăpuşanu, Teodor Murăşanu, Alimpiu Barboloviciu, Augustin Deac, Ioan Maniu, Camil Mureşanu, Ioan Moţa, Teodor Brateş, Valerian Stan, Repere transilvane, Emil Pop, Christian Mititelu, Alexander Hecht, Alexander Ratiu, Gelu Neamţu, Dionisie Ghermani and Dan Fornade should be reviewed: some of these are definitely nonentities.

Remember our anti-ahnentafel crusade? It seems lost, but this could be a venue to make a heroic statement. A family tree and a large, non-collapsed table is a bit much.

Do you know any details about the Galaţi massacre? Several modern sources (1, 2, 3) indicate most of the victims were Jewish. But interestingly, a report appearing in The New York Times a few days after the fact says quite emphatically that those killed were Gagauz workers from Galaţi, eager to return to their homes in the Bugeac, occupied by the USSR a couple of days earlier. I wonder where the truth lies: maybe the original report was faulty?

Any interest in this stuff? (Click "all sizes" to enlarge.) It's from here if you decide to use it. The Bogza painting is amusing! (And can be used in the "popular culture" section of our Petroleum industry in Romania, when we get that going.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, naturally they're copyrighted - I was thinking about invoking fair use, but if you're reluctant to do that and prefer linking to an external site - well, I'm the same way. And yes, I've thought cynically along those lines myself. Goga just went into the public domain; García Lorca did so in 2007; Iorga does so in 2011. Two, possibly three, of them died violently. Ah, and then there's James Joyce, who had to die on January 11, pushing back his public domain date to 2012 - if only he'd died just 10 days earlier, 2011 would have been the year. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ţinuturi

Wow! What have I gotten myself into? I had a suspicion that when I started those edits I would get into trouble. Here's what I was after: the articles as written (excluding the info boxes) did not clarify how long the ţinuturi lasted. To me as a curious reader, I felt that was an obvious gap that needed to be closed. I did not realize the political complexity of it all, however. Given your obvious knowledge, may I suggest you tackle the corrections? I think you'll do a better job. If you want me to check for clarity, let me know! cheers! Verne Equinox (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romani MoS

I agree there is a lot of xenophobic and POV crap included in many Romani related articles, and I hope my pedantic chippings at minor issues is not an irritant. Like yourself, I do also see the bigger picture and would like better cooperation between like-minded editors with whom I may have differences of opinion on relatively minor issues but generally agree with when it comes to 'the big picture'. I think there should be more discussion here. RashersTierney (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania and the Mongol Invasion of 1241

I tried to create an article about actual romanian territory and the impact that the Mongol invasion had. If you want reference read ro:Invazia mongolă din 1241 şi ţările române. As you have mentioned my grammar seems "unworthy" of english wikipedia but as worse as my grammar seems to be there is nothing funny about this article! You do a better article! There is a good article for reference here http://www.rocsir.usv.ro/archiv/2004_1-2/2VioletaEpure2004.pdf ♫Razool —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Unitarism in Transylvania

Hello! Sorry not to react immediately. Modifying the article, was not malicious from my side. To tellthe truth I have double interest to keep the information I felt to delete.

For the picture: you might be right from the point it is the main church, but on the other side the picture does not show the whole church (not the most fortunate one), only the middle and the church itself is architecturally not the most beautiful one (19th century, not imposant, better than the concrete one on the bottom, but still for teh main picture I think some "romantic" would be better). Therefore I replaced with the one I selected. I hope I convince you as well.

For the info for the Hungarian kings and Catholic legends, I am neutral, on one hand I like to advertise Hungarian historical facts, but on the other hand, if I look at the topic and protestant reality saints have not much to do in this article.

So my intention was not at all against you and I appreciate your efforts in the topic, I hope for the pic I convinced you,

have a nice day, --Vargatamas (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' item

Do you know who "Cînde" is, listed as a Romanian poet here in this Wiki list [12]? I couldn't find out online. A from L.A. (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I'm removing him/her from the list. If the person goes on to become notable than that will be a different story. Thanks :) A from L.A. (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism articles

By the way, I haven't forgotten about the WikiProject, but I'm waiting for someone else to add more to it and to help it get started. I'm not into symbolist literature nearly as much as I was ten years ago, and I was never much into what is called symbolist painting. I like art nouveau, but even that is a lot of old school stuff that I only look back on sometimes. My taste in painting is pretty modern. A from L.A. (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick the Kingmaker

I took no offence, I think we're entirely in agreement on the issue of the ahnentafels. I'll wait a little bit to see if anyone else weighs in, but I'd be happy to join a campaign against them, in FAs particularly.

The family tree is a different matter though; I created that myself. It is not there to present new information, but to give a graphical representation of something that can be very difficult to understand through text alone, particularly for readers not intimately familiar with the subject. Tables like this are very common in academic publications. Lampman (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you there. I've made FAs out of both Edward III and Richard II previously, and both have been burdened with these things. On Edward III, by the way, I also felt it was necessary with a family tree, to explain the rationale behind the English claim to the French throne, and the origins of the Hundred Years' War. But various tables, sections and templates have since crept in, to the point where there are now six or seven different family trees, mostly just duplicating information.

We could of course just remove the ahnentafel on the Warwick page, but it would be much better to receive wider community support to curb the madness universally. The problem is that wikiprojects like the genealogy one don't get much traffic, and it's hard to really get wide community input on an issue such as this. Lampman (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans

Hi Dahn, I know that this is a pain now that you've commented extensively on the category talk page, but prior to your comments I didn't think there was much hope of generating further comment there, so I went ahead and made a formal CfD nomination for discussion of the issues raised there. The link is here is you'd like to make comments there (perhaps some cutting and pasting to duplicate your comments is in order): Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_15#Anglicans_parent_category_(-ies). Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to take another look at this issue. It is not as simple as it seems and we currently have a tree where Roman Catholic articles end up in a subcategory of Protestantism. Please take another look at this. -- Secisek (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have articles such as Pastoral Provision, Anglican Use and Book of Divine Worship which concern the Roman Catholic Church which are presently in a subcat of Protestantism. -- Secisek (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the article relates to both Anglicanism and the Roman Catholic Church.

You may note that Martin Luther is under Category:Roman Catholics as a former Roman Catholic since he was a Augustinian friar. Would you also want to remove him from Category:Augustinian friars or remove Category:Augustinian friars from Category:Roman Catholic friars? --Carlaude ^(talk) 04:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are related to both but none of those subjects should be in a sub cat of Protestantism - and one small change corrects this. -- Secisek (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Yes, indeed. But too much imagination is also no good: history is a discipline, a subject, whatever you want, but not a science! :-) I'm not going to touch your edit, though. Dc76\^talk 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace to you, as well. :-) Obviously, I was just teasing you.

Now, seriously. It is one thing what is science, and a totally different thing what is convinient for classification (in education, in funds appropriation, etc) to consider science. Natural sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology and health sciences) are just one part. We also have engeneering (which is application of science, but it developed into a science, or group of sciences, due to the fundamental usage of scientific approach). We also have mathematics, which is the language of science, but not a natural science by itself. We also have computer science, another applied science, which generally is associated with engineering, hence sometimes referred to as computer engineering. Another similar branch is agricultural engineering. And let me repeat: only a small part of what some engineers do is science, the rest is plain dumb application, if not just routine tasks. We then have geophysics, geology, and other earth sciences. Finally, we have economics, which only recently (last generation or two) turned into a science due to the fundamental role that mathematics plays there. But not all methods and branches of economics are yet scientific. If we attempt to step further, we loose the fundamental characteristics of science. There is very little scientific in modern history, psychology, sociology, phylosophy, linguistics, classics, etc. That does not mean to say that they are not important, that they should not be studied (as disciplines), that they should not receive fundung (but not as much as science). Simply, at this moment of the development of mankind there is little scientific in the social disciplines. What is a discovery there? what is a theory there? what kind of mathematisation they employ? Zero, zero, and again zero. Specifically about history, antropology and archeology have some incipient features of scientific approach. But when it comes to historiography, with all due respect, it is shameful to even suggest that can be called science. It has little more merit than dialectical materialism.

That said, however, I do not object to classifying these disciplines as an appendix to science and technology, because that has one fundamental advantage (besides simplifying classification for the benefit of dummies): it forces those disciplines to higher standards. If you want, it is similar to classifying education and health under economy. It's ok, provided we know what we are talking about.

:-) Dc76\^talk 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what does dixlesic mean? Honestly I have no idea. Perhaps you meant to say dyslexic. Given your language skills on WP, it's obviously something you aren't. By very-very far. On the contrary, I am, and the amount of misspelings, grammar and vocabulary mistakes I make it utterly staggering. Dc76\^talk 19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out

I found a: quote: legendary art dealer, Ileana Sonnabend, born October 28th, 1914 in Bucharest. Currently her article redirects to Leo Castelli. Do you think we should give her her own article? Seems like something you'd be interested in. A from L.A. (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of checking out, I've long been frustrated by our list of Romanian PMs, so I finally redid it. Thoughts? I rather like the minimalist look myself, though we can also experiment with colours. Some of the C/L/M stuff for the early ones inevitably involves a little guesswork, but I've tried to stay close to what the sources tell us. Also, any idea how Alexandru Constantin Moruzi became the "first ever" PM? Maybe in Moldavia, but it's everywhere indicated that Catargiu was first. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, those are duplicates; I've fixed the problem. The anti-diacritics war of attrition continues, having recently held and gained ground. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that, and was amused by zh:Giurtelecu Şimleului (no attempt to render in Chinese characters?), lv:Džurteleku Šimleuluja and lt:Džurteleku Šimleulujus (thoughtfully transliterating, as is customary in those languages) and vi:Giurtelecu Şimleului - does he even know a little Vietnamese? It even has its own Commons page and category; it truly seems to be the centre of the universe. How dare those Japanese delete it twice?

Back in the real world, I was dismayed by this, which proves yet again that quiet merging is the only viable option, because the "villages are inherently notable" crowd is dominant. Also, I note that the bot creating these articles is still very active; one can only hope such a project isn't initiated for Romania, though I fear it may come at some point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the BOLDness; let's see what comes of it. Next: pre- or post-Mirgheca? - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I've compared you to Lenin and me to Stalin; now you're "socialism in one country" Stalin and I'm "permanent revolution" Trotsky. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't kept up with that list but yes, I will try to do something about it in the near term. Meanwhile, how do you like my own Template:BORDioceses? For one, "diocese" is much more common than the rather outdated "bishopric" or even more dubious "eparchy". I agree the process has been haphazard (Vicar Bishop of Archbishopric of Bucharest should just be merged away; and then we have random lists like Archbishop of Tomi (Constanţa), Archbishop of Suceava, Archbishop of Cluj and Archbishop of Alba Iulia), and that one article per diocese, with perhaps a list of bishops, is the way to go.

Elena Udrea is now with us! A somewhat difficult subject to tackle, and I tried to be fair to her, but feel free to add, or trim some of the more gossipy stuff. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked it and (even though I don't mind Elena - she's certainly more refreshing than, say, this guy) I agree, she seems to relish the spotlight, even if it's often negative. I put in for a DYK (rather boring hook, so if you'd like to propose an alternate, please do so) right above this - I would appreciate verification on that.

As for the public figures: there is where I consider to be the more serious systemic bias to be, not in the absence until very recently of Alexandru Avram, Cornel Râpă, Adrian Hurdubei or FC Oţelul Galaţi season 2007–08 (note: stubs are now being written on kids born in the '90s!). - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alternate hook. Meanwhile, I just noticed this, much of it being rather disastrous (eg, Peter the Lame, Ilona Szilágy). - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. And, lest I be accused of some high crime, stalk me! stalk me! ;) - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Time Zones

X-D Oh, that's priceless. No, that's perfectly fine, although I was a bit confused at first. Best of luck getting your clocks set the right way! (by the way, it's currently 11:30 PM US Eastern, and 4:30 AM GMT ;-) ) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good stuff

If that's your secret plan, I'd like more of it, please :) DYK is a cool place, it's a good opportunity for interesting but not-yet-rated articles to appear easily on the Main Page. That said, I think your stuff should have some kind of automatic FA status, I felt weird assessing such detailed, well-sourced, high-quality content for the modest DYK ;) Keep it up and all the best, Todor →Bozhinov 07:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgescu

Your article has been put in queue to appear on the main page. It is currently in Queue 5 and should appear on the Main Page in the morning. Cbl62 (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Paul Georgescu

On February 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Georgescu, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonescu

~~Might I suggest self reverting? That was your 4th revert in 24 hours and so you are liable to be blocked otherwise. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

My apologies on the error. Good luck with trying to sort things out on the article. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment

You're quite right about the authorship, which I've fixed. For the rest, would it be possible for you to go ahead with the edits and show me more clearly what you'd like done? I'm sure it'll be agreeable, but I'm also going to be away for a few days and I may as well leave the matter in trusted hands. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know those guys who edit briefly and hope won't return? One of them (creator of the brilliant Social structure of Romania) is back, and besides causing further deterioration at Culture of Romania, has now given us List of Romania-related articles, and the egregious Traditions of Romania (note that, per what this article implies, all Romanian citizens are ethnic Romanian and Orthodox, not to mention the lack of any sources indicating what does and what does not constitute a "tradition") and History of romanian culture. Sigh... - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of those forks and no, I didn't know about that site, but it could indeed be useful. A couple of links right back: [13], [14] (!). Which also gives me an idea: with the material you have at hand, might it be possible to improve on some other biographies, like Sima's or (the famously problematic) King Michael's? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought: looking at Florentina Mosora, I kept wondering if any improvement was possible, and then I realised: this should be held up as a model of how not to write an article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not notable, so see here. Also, while the discussion is headed in the right way, I'm sure your comment here will be a good one. And yes, I do remember agreeing tentatively on Carol II, and that will give us occasion to use the Jurnalul Naţional pages on him.

By the way, a small housekeeping request for when you have a moment: Zece Prăjini, Potlogeni, Borla, Sălaj, Prislop, Sibiu and Cuciulata all need redirecting - but is there any material (aside from the photographs) worth salvaging? Let's try to get rid of these too. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking, if you need a break from Ion, The Other One could use some attention too :) But with so many news articles on him in recent days, I should be able to handle this myself. By the way, have you seen Ethnic flag?? Even if we buy that the flag of Romania represents ethnic Romanians as well as the country Romania, North Koreans? I wasn't aware that all Japanese are represented by this flag, or that this one represents the Vietnamese. And do "Anglo-Africans" really attach much importance to this flag, last used 99 years ago? And why does a 1485 flag better represent the Portuguese than the one used since 1911? And, if we're going to talk about ethnic flags, where is an ethnic flag par excellence, this one? So many questions on this front... - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a previous participant in "e-ethnocide", you may be interested in this discussion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) We now know who Anonimu is! 2) This is getting annoying; it's too bad how one determined user can hold up consensus like that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am back, but I will mostly make maps, since I do not have time to edit articles like before. Anyway, thank you for your welcome. PANONIAN 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template: let's make it look nice

I'm working on the WP Symbolism & Art Nouveau template but I don't like how it looks. I'm going to try to make it look nicer on my own, but if you want to help. Alex (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That actually looks good, we should use it for now. I saw it in commons but I wanted a female one, the face looks male. But despite that it is a better image, it has an upbeatness to it, whereas the one with the red flowers was dark & dismal. So the new image looks good. Mine was advertising a newspaper or something, so I knew it wouldn't be the best choice from what we have in commons, even though I like it as an image more than the two you chose (not as a image for the template)---but I realize that for the purpose of the template, we should probably not choose an image that says "read the Sun" :) Alex (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through commons confirms my tastes that I already had: I don't like much of "symbolist painting", I'm more attracted to the later Art Nouveau, more suitable for poster art, etc. Alex (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that one much more, kudos. I also think that Love/Romance lies at the heart of a lot of symbolism (from A Season in Hell to Mallarme's poems etc.) , so let's stick with that. Alex (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gheorghe Argeşanu and other images

You are right that I was bending the definition of fair-use... However, regarding the "low resolution", I'm still saying the image is low resolution, because it is has a size of 242 x 320 pixels, compared to the original which has 966 x 1280 pixels. Regarding the "adequately give the same information" part, I *could* argue that this picture provides more information than the old picture (it represents the subject more accurately; for example, you can see that he has a mole under the right eye), but I won't, because I agree that's a silly argument.

I guess that in the back of my mind, the reason that pushed me to add this picture is that the old one is marked PD, but has no author information (therefore we cannot know for sure that the author of the picture died more 70 years ago), we do not know where it was first published (so we cannot know for sure if the Romanian copyright law applies, or the US law, or other laws). I was adding this image with full source information, and I guess I was sub-consciously thinking that the old image may not be *really* PD, so the images *may* have the same copyright status, but the new image has a better quality and complete source information.

Therefore I will propose this image to be deleted, letting others to have the final words on this one. Razvan Socol (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class

As a member of the WikiProject who is Running for coordinator (cross your fingers on my bid for coordinator) it is always great to see someone else who shares your same opinion (that we don't need a C-Class). Keep up the Good Work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fondane.eu

FYI: It has no content (so I don't know how it could possibly enhance the article), and has been spammed cross-wiki. It's now blacklisted. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Situl RESTITUTIO BENJAMIN FONDANE - www.fondane.eu

"Dahn", aveti aerul ca sinteti la curent... Si dumneavoastra anonim, din pacate... Nu inteleg, totusi, de ce atita ura si obstinatie in a scoate linkul catre situl lui Fondane? Situl va fi activ peste putin timp. Nu credeti ca ar fi mai bine - daca tot aveti acces la interfata - sa corectati acel "Barbu" de pe pagina romana, unde ceilalti utilizatori nu au acces? Chiar nu inteleg de ce atita incrincenare. Toate paginile lui Fondane, in toate limbile, sint prost facute, cu greseli... Iar, cind incepe cineva sa lucreze la ele, primul lucru pe care il fac unii este sa le vandalizeze, sa scoata linkurile si asa mai departe. Trist. 213.233.103.74 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Luiza Palanciuc[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please in the future put a discussion on the talk page on some articles for deletion

You recently started a discussion for deletion of the Template:Eastern Bloc defection because it was too long.

This was an easily fixable issue, and a discussion on the Talk page would have alerted others to the length issue. It was, for example, about as short as the tangentially related Template:Cold War, and I had no idea length was an issue to anyone and had, myself, continued to expand the Template accordingly.

If, when a fixable issue arises, you discuss an issue first on the talk page, it will avoid deletion, followed by starting another article with the same material, only the issues in the deletion discussion fixed.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good God, would you please stop deleting all parenthetical descriptions

In Template:Eastern Bloc defection‎. That's pretty much bordering on vandalism.

If you have an issue with some not being descriptive enough, please alter the description, don't delete all of them.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply unreal. I can't believe I actually have to go to ANI over this blatant deletion. This is usually the sort of thing reserved for kids in school from unregistered IPs.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to call me "Good God" - I am only human. Dahn (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time out

Mosedschurte and Dahn - stop responding to each other. Whatever the original incident, you're just arguing back and forth here and being disruptive. Stop responding and let some uninvolved administrators review and get back to you with more feedback.

If you continue pushing each others' buttons, a short block to prevent further disruption and rude behavior may be required. Please don't do that - let us review, ask you some questions on your talk pages, let things calm down now.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving down

1. Meanwhile, I'm happy to report no trouble with the other village mergers, the one exception being Galeş. Its creator is the author of the YouTube videos linked, and tenaciously defends the article. Ideally, my version of Sălişte will be restored and the redirect protected by someone, because for now at least, there's no stopping him.

2. An odd ruling from the FA director: even if the site is an RS (dubious), their blog certainly isn't.

3. We may have to rethink it if he gets elected (or even gets into the second round, or becomes PM). There's also Mihai Antonescu, though I'd say Ion is clearly still the primary usage.

4. By the way, since you asked before, there is a trickle of news sources on the nPCR: [15], [16], [17] and the Nepecerişti (a different party): [18].

5. "Politics is the art of the possible." I'm sure there are better ways of presenting the information (plus I wish there was more on 1969-89), but I can almost guarantee it'd survive AfD in the current form: "look! Sources! Notable!" Just look at the way this is headed: agreements signed, leaders had a meeting -> notable! - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if this is of any interest. It appears in Romania during the World War I Era, Kurt W. Treptow (ed.), The Center for Romanian Studies, Iaşi, 1999.

I despair. Seriously, where's the logic in a one-day Iliescu visit generating "notability"?

Mind if I ask again for an intervention in the Galeş/Sălişte affair? (If you think it's the right course, that is.) The man is now threatening to "report" me for merging that and Şapartoc (creating a "misleading" impression) - he's particularly incensed that I told him we don't need self-promotional videos by Wikipedian tourists. I now called the videos "moronic", which I'm sure will inflame him even further. If you entered the fray, it would at least lessen the focus on me, should he in fact "report" me. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, although the WWI Antonescu is not that controversial a figure - certainly when compared to the WWII Antonescu. (How fortunate General Averescu was to have died in 1938! Had Pétain done so, at the venerable age of 82, even now he would still be lying in the Pantheon.) And thank you for taking on Galeş. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, no "still". Alternate history scenarios are rich for 1937-44:

Codreanu not killed - either remains in opposition or joins forces with Carol

Călinescu not killed, and handles the international situation with more realism

Carol uses force to hang on to power, keeps Antonescu detained

Moruzov doesn't get shot; works as a Soviet spy :p

The Guard seizes power while Antonescu is in Berlin (and rules not only with cruelty, but with great incompetence)

Carol hands over power to Maniu, Brătianu & Titel Petrescu, who of course keep Antonescu locked up (maybe that leads to a Sweden-like situation, with guaranteed oil for Germany?)

Which leads me to a question that some might have when reading about Antonescu: was he the only general around who could plausibly lead the country? How strong was his support within the Army? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, there was still a Sima, but a Sima in control of a very fractured Guard, one that perhaps the brilliant minds heading the state could have found ways to exploit the divisions of. It seems individual Romanians are endlessly being co-opted and abandoning principles at the drop of a hat (democrats to fascists, fascists to communists, communists to fascists to democrats...); in retrospect, Călinescu's mistake seems to have been not backing (tacitly) the elder Codreanu rather than going after the Guard as a whole. Plus, had the Patriarch and senior bishops been induced to speak out forcefully against the Guard in the fall of 1940 (which I'm sure could have been arranged), that too might have sapped its strength. And even if part of the Guard were being persecuted, I don't think Hitler would have cared that much as long as the oil kept flowing (and, say, overflight rights) - indeed, maybe Maniu could have arranged to send Guard members (and Saxons & Swabians) en masse to the front, killing two birds with one stone...
I'd actually removed the blog source when he reverted me; if he still doesn't see the problem, I don't know if I should press the matter.
No, I didn't know about the NPCR article. I can't say quite what the opposition was thinking in '44 - certainly '40 was on their minds at least, but after about '37, and certainly after '44, they strike me as a rather passé, disoriented bunch pursuing illusory scenarios (see Argetoianu). Infinitely preferable to the PCR, of course, just not really "with it".
I think the relations articles may be headed toward some sort of guideline. Anyway, it's good that at least a few people see things the way we do. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since I know you've undergone the same stress at times, this gentleman needs some encouragement, it seems. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Romania - an AfD candidate? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One! Two! Three! (Well, for three maybe there's a viable reason for keeping, but it's rather hard to see.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've mentioned him to you before, but today, I had to laugh as I looked at the photo of Toma George Maiorescu. I like how part of the article is in Romanian. But hey, Renate Weber also has a nice resume up (written by her press officer), and so does Sarsembaev, Marat Aldangorovich (written by one User:Данияр СМ), but at least that one's up for deletion. (Weber is of course notable; we just shouldn't be hosting her PR materials.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing - I'd wanted to get rid of that one for a while. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, a Happy Easter to you, Dahn. Ah, and it gets even better: "Este o rusine de om , un excrement a lui Iliescu si al FSNului a carui sluga a fost aducand prejudicii majore cauzei democratiei romanesti de dupa "revolutie"." Could even qualify for speedy deletion, but it's absolutely good for AfD. Pretty soon I'll have more time and be able to write some more, but while I'm still in this anti-silly bilaterals crusade, this strikes me as even more absurd than Romania-Armenia: apparently, one need not even be a state to conduct bilateral relations today. Who knew? (Well, of course the PLO used to do it, Abkhazia does it - but in this case there's no doubt the Dutch government is the one conducting the relations.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders: were the county-by-county lists not sufficient? And as an Eliade fan, you'll be sure to enjoy our new article on Maitreyi Devi. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo on the latest barrage of devastating logic (which, alas, is having difficulty penetrating through); this is also bound to be of interest to you. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not content with penning his autobiography, User:Darjro has now written about his father Dinu Hervian, but unfortunately seems not to have consulted WP:RS, WP:V or WP:MOS thus far. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rakovsky

Dahn, I'm not sure which category you were referring to re. the Christian Rakovsky article (I think it was my inclusion of the category "Romanian politicians"). Since Rakovsky did run for Parliament in Romania according to the article, I thought that the categorization would be appropriate. I also cleaned up one or two grammatical mistakes and added a couple of other obviously relevant categories and put what there was in alphabetical order (there must be over 40 categories for the Rakovsky page, so I thought sorting them out might be more user-friendly than making people scan for five minutes before adding or removing a relevant or irrelevant one). Not sure why you reverted, but since you're watching the article, I'll stick with your judgment in either case.

Thanks, 166.203.0.99 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider starting an account, because I'm not even sure you still have the same IP as I'm writing this (which is why I'll replicate this on my talk page). Most of your edits were very sound, and I apologize because my reverts messed them up. I first took issue with the format (linking dates when all were delinked - it's a long controversy, but whatever preference needs to be consistent in one article). I have separate problems with the two cats for CPSU members and Bolsheviks, which I hadn't noticed before: the former is most likely redundant to Soviet politicians, the latter is frankly absurd (the term is as vague as to mean anything, and its overlap with CPSU members for those it intends to cover is about 100%). But I have kept one and will re-add the other, since I don't want to get tangled in that debate. You were also right on principle about Romanian politicians (which I simply hadn't noticed), but note that he is already in there through the PSDR members category (I since added another more specific and newish category for his case). As for your sorting: I'm fine with any system, I'll revisit yours because it could prove to be better - just give me a moment. Dahn (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for 41 years, 11 months and 22 days (the exact time from 30.12.1947 to 22.12.1989) in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Stalinism. Attempting to defame a Romanian Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot, Sara Montiel, and Gina Lolobrigida all rolled up into one (but whom no one's heard of) is totally unacceptable. Your secret police connections are clear; what they did to Stepan Bandera and Yevhen Konovalets, you are trying to do to her, but you shall not succeed!!! Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Biruitorul ^Talk 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

Hi, Dahn! I made here a proposal for renaming. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Europe

Something has to be done with the article Latin Europe. I noticed you have been involved with the article, and have pointed out some issues with it. Isnt there a wikigroup dedicated to rewritting this disgraceful article. I have a good understanding on the subject, and am willing to offer my services. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan

It is not personal, but please discuss the changes in the talk page. I'm only trying to avoid the weasel wording (as "rarely") and it's true that the terms Moldovan and Moldavian are overlapping. Besides, the moldovans, as an ethnic group are recognized only in states that belonged to the former Soviet Union. Regards, --Olahus (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Maria Antonescu

On April 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maria Antonescu, 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.

∗ \ / (⁂) 07:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe

Hey, I've reverted your redirect here. As I see that you yourself have been arguing, Latin Europe is not the same as the countries in Europe who speak a Romance language (otherwise Romania and Moldova would have been included). The "Romance-speaking Europe" article is therefore helpful to distinguish the two (as well as the table being somewhat useful). If you still disagree, please can we discuss before reverting again. Cheers. Lingamondo (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the way the article currently stands, it gives little more than what Romance languages already gives us, rather than redirect it, we should try to add more to it. See the newly created Germanic-speaking Europe for an example. Lingamondo (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Macedonski

I hate to be the polite police, but I think that calling the the edit of the family's origin vandalism is a bit harsh and does not assume WP:GF. The line as it appears now is a bit awkward and does not aptly explain why "South Slav" "Bulgarian and "aromanian" are all used when the last appears to describe the first two. I have no idea what the correct term is or why there are so many descriptions about their origin, but I can see why aromanian would be used since it appears to encompass all 3. I don't know enough to support the previous change, but I do know it is within the bounds of good faith. Mrathel (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Again, I dont quite understand the cultures of the Balkins, or even if this falls into that category :), but I was just a bit confused by the extent of your reaction. I have seen the same kind of edits appear as both vandalism and simply as misguided edits by IP users who think they know something that they actually don't. Best wishes. Mrathel (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Europe

What seems to be your problem!? What are your motivations on pretending like Romania isn't a part of Latin Europe!?

Why is it that important to you to keep up false pieces informations on the Wikipedia page? I really don't understand what your problem is! --Pletet (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I have better things to do than keep explaining basic things to you, Pletet, particularly when it's quite clear your goal is to POV push no matter what the answer. Read the article's corresponding talk page: I've explained whatever needed to be explained several hundreds of times by now, and users who actually edit in good faith have themselves backed those points.

At this point, accusing me of proliferating "false" ideas and having a secret agenda, when the argument you support is not endorsed by a single reliable outside source, and when (as you yourself acknowledged) versions excluding Romania explicitly or implicitly are the staple of all quoted sources, is tantamount to severe trolling.

Be warned: if you continue haranguing and/or reverting without bothering to obey wikipedia rules about sourcing, and since I'm already tired of your charades, I'll open a formal review of your conduct on WP:AN/I. There's a pretty high chance it'll end up in a block, particularly since you've already provided other editors with enough clues that you may be in fact a sockpuppet.

Now, will there be anything else? Dahn (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, just in the unlikely event you're not already familiar with the quotable wikipedia policies: read WP:OR and WP:NOT. It's the last time I assume you have not been informed about them, even though these issues have come up on the respective talk page several times by now. Dahn (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek War of Independence

Hi! How are you? I am working on the article of the heading, and I was wondering if you have any sources about the following paragraph of the article:

"Instead of directly advancing on Brăila [Ypsilantis], where he arguably could have prevented Ottoman armies from entering the Principalities, and where he might have forced Russia to accept a fait accompli, he remained in Iaşi, and ordered the executions of several pro-Ottoman Moldovans. In Bucharest, where he had arrived on March 27 after some weeks delay, he decided that he could not rely on the Wallachian Pandurs to continue their Oltenian-based revolt and assist the Greek cause; Ypsilantis was mistrusted by the Pandur leader Tudor Vladimirescu, who, as a nominal ally to the Eteria, had started the rebellion as a move to prevent Scarlat Callimachi from reaching the throne in Bucharest, while trying to maintain relations with both Russia and the Ottomans."

I am trying to research, prood-read it, and cite it, but on-line sources are not so helpful. So, I was wondering if you have any sources, dealing with these events, in order to check the accuracy of the above thread.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH

I didn't intend to break WP:SYNTH here. Can you reformulate the article in a way that doesn't break this rule? --Olahus (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Bloc article (as suggested on AfD-- suggestion for expansion on Egypt

I am not sure if you would include the U.S.S.R. as part of the Communist Bloc, or if you were referring specifically to the Eastern Bloc/Satellite States. (Odd really I never thought of it, I suppose the U.S.S.R. wouldn't call it the Eastern Bloc, being on their west and all that.)

Anyway, the coverage of U.S.S.R./Russia's involvement in the Egypt article seems to me extremely sketchy (two mentions of "soviet" and none of "Russia", and that in relation to the Six Day War. But Russia had a big hand in e.g. building the Aswan High Dam and providing lots of lovely roubles and nice weapons.

I should probably try to expand this a bit in the Egypt article myself, I lived there a couple of years so I know a bit about it but I don't have much in the way of reliable sources, if I did that and you proceeded with the eastern bloc & third world overview then you could simply refer to it, one way or another (include a summary or see also or main or whatever is most appropriate). What do you think?

I suppose this is also assuming you consider that Egypt is, or rather at least until 1970ish when they booted the U.S.S.R. out WAS, third world. I don't think that's an unreasonable definition but perhaps you were thinking more specifically about sub-saharan Africa or something?

There's probably quite some interest with the Communist Bloc and Libya too, and perhaps Algeria-- I don't know much about those. Certainly I think what you propose would make a good article.

BTW nomenclature: I was always told that the Communist Bloc was the "second world" and the "third world" was what we were taught. Now it's "developing nations" or some codswallop, which seems unnecessarily vague (as if first world nations aren't developing too) and the "western world" or similar, whereas most of the states in the "western world" are in the Eastern Hemisphere. To my mind, "first", "second", "third" world" are just much better when describing the political get-up, which of course is what this would be about. If existing definitions are unsatisfactory they can either be changed or, if there is resistance, narrower definitions placed in the article — I have done that in the past just to avoid needless repetition throughout, and it seems to raise few objections providing one isn't defining black as white.

Best wishes, let me know your thoughts. SimonTrew (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dahn,

(:I don't know where you prefer replies so I will do it here, quoting you where necessary.)

Thanks for your response.

Yes, come to think of it, I agree you are right that bloc-to-bloc is unfeasibly vague and big. I was, essentially, working from the assumption that the Soviet bloc was fairly homogenous i.e. that the satellite states were essentially puppets of the Soviet state. You probably don't see it that way and it is no doubt a false assumption. For those reasons alone my initial thought of a kind of summary article is a bad idea.

No, I was not suggesting "Russia" were preferable to "U.S.S.R." or "Soviet Union"-- only that I would tend to include that in a search term, especially if I got no luck with the other two, in case someone else habitually used that term. When I was growing up (I am 36) "Russia" was synonymous with the U.S.S.R. "Communist bloc" or "Eastern bloc" is a bit more problematic and I think would have to be taken case by case. For example, whether China would be considered part of the Communist bloc would very much depend, I suspect, on the subject of the article-- possibly with a bit of POV thrown in.

Yes, I did follow up the Egypt article into other sections (Modern Egyptian History or some such, and the biographies of the presidents). I admit I was scanning quickly as I was mostly working on other articles but it does seem very scant. It will be pretty low priority for me too because I'd need to do a lot of research, and I can probably be more useful doing other things. A pity because, without care, it can look like deliberate omission.

Best wishes and thanks for the reply. SimonTrew (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guşă-Şandru

Question, Dahn. Is there any good link you see between these two? I'm not that interested in a DYK on them, but if I can do one, why not? Guşă is the godfather of Şandru's daughter, but I doubt that cuts it. Maybe the fact that one now works for the PSD, and the other wanted to join them recently, despite their serious criticisms of it in the past?

Anyway: who knew? Seriously. This is outrageous, as is this, and this only slightly less so. But with the willful determination to throw in all the trivia one can find, it's to be expected. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unhelpful to disguise links. (WP:ASTONISH). Why not just say "I don't like all these 'relations' articles" being created, such as..."? (which is covered anyway at AfD). I didn't realise that to be a WP editor one had to be a detective. Please remember that user pages are public and are not owned by anyone, if you think this comment is out of order. I am getting very fed up tonight first with riduculous WP:BURO and secondly with deliberate obfuscation. I realise that user pages are not held to the same standards as article namespace (though technically bound by the same policies), but why can't y'all just say what you mean? SimonTrew (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. I actually have a somewhat interesting DYK hook on, of all people, Radu Berceanu. As I was writing on him, he seemed the exemplar of a post-'89 apparatchik - plain-looking, low-key, relatively uncontroversial, local party boss, stays just out of sight in his fiefdoms (the Ministry and the Dolj party apparatus), amassing a nice bank account in the process - but then the Securitate dossier caught my eye. So, if you could go just above this and, if all checks out, verify that hook, I'd much appreciate it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work there. Good question. Shenanigans? Mischief? We want to imply neither that he was completely on the level, nor a criminal - these might do it.

Ah, and you're quite right about the war of attrition. This was a low point ("both nations are directly affected by the Gulf Stream"), and by this point, we might as well start to openly mock them: "[the foreign ministers] agreed that Bulgaria and Indonesia should boost their bilateral cooperation". Yes, of course: boosting bilateral cooperation. What else were they going to say? "Rot in hell!" "Out of my sight, you blackguard!" "Let's not boost bilateral cooperation for a change"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Grey market transactions" is precise if a bit verbose; speculation doesn't carry quite the same connotations as it did in Communist countries; smuggling, trafficking and bootlegging sound rather too dramatic. It looks like a few terms more or less hit the mark, but none (at first glance) quite precisely. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. By the way, compare RB's birthdate to this man's death date. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I was toying with that thought myself, and with somehow tying this to Stalin's rise to power (the double photo is itself an interesting form of positive reinforcement), but what this really points to is the need for a Joseph Stalin–Radu Berceanu relations article - the boosting of bilateral cooperation, the memoranda of understanding, the multifaceted development of trade are all richly deserving of our attention. And I bet half the votes would say "keep" at AfD. It's working here and here, so why not? - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries there, and I'm glad you finally got a chance to see it. My own attention has drifted away from that area: after all, how does one counter arguments like these? Much more interesting to write about people with unfortunate hunting accidents. By the way: note the obvious hole in his official CV (1981-1991): I know "economic adviser" in the Church has "Securitate" stamped all over it (especially when working under Nicolae Corneanu), but a) isn't he aware of Google, and that the press is bound to pick up on these things? b) vehemently denying one's involvement but then conveniently hiding a decade in an official résumé would tend to raise more questions than answers, I'd think. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another redirect candidate? And there's a chance I'm wrong here - do let me know your opinion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I look forward to seeing what you're working on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is up for DYK - aside from the poor grammar and three links to Romanian, I note we're not even told the denomination. Which would seem especially relevant given the possibility it went from Greek Catholic to Orthodox to Greek Catholic... Also on the religious front, any thoughts on these changes? Personally, I don't see why we should say the church is concentrated in Transylvania if the sources don't, and that table is not only ungainly and able to be fitted into the prose, but the 1950 number (at least) contradicts what the prose, sourced to a more reliable location, says, and the 2008 estimate (especially considering its provenance) is bound to be controversial; the 2011 census isn't that far off, and will surely provide a more accurate figure. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Antonescu

I've put the recent rant on the talk page (and subsequent support of that position) up for discussion here. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN not ANI.You can find it: Here --Narson ~ Talk • 13:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grigore Cugler

Fine, I'll leave the article as it is, but your edit summary is really rude.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar notice

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For excellent arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dahn (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan, India

Hi Dahn. I see you've picked up on those systematic additions to Romani related articles. I don't see the pressing need for any of them and think they should go, but was waiting to see if others on the Project also saw it as unusual. RashersTierney (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAzlo Tokes article

Can you please check, by Wiki rules in articles is used widely accepted names (in this case Romanian names) so there is no valid reason why Hungarian names should be prezent except on that city`s page. Thank you 79.114.47.213 (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rule Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) , under paragraph "Widely accepted name" where in this case is Romanian language. When used in article , any article it should use only Widely accepted name - Romanian names, when wikipedia redirects then can be used bilingual names of the city`s in Romania, Hungary or any other state. I hope this rule will be respected. What they are trying to do is to impose the Hungarian version of a name based on historical nostalgy and not on actual usage while providing no valid arguments. Regarding this article, (Laszlo Tokes), at the time he was born the city`s mentioned in the article were/are part of Romania. These is no valid reason why the Hungarian names should be present, in this case, other than Hungarian names added on the city`s page. Thank you. 79.114.47.213 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High School

The offensive IP originates from a High School. If it's inflammatory behavior continues their access to wikipedia will have to be cut off. Hobartimus (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hunyadi

Why do you call the Hungarian national hero, Vlach? And why did you remove the source? There was a source on the Catholic enciklopedia... You are vandal?

PZJTF

@@ Line 862: / Line 862: @@
 The offensive IP originates from a High School. If it's inflammatory behavior continues their access to wikipedia will have to be cut off. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
+== John Hunyadi ==
+Why do you call the Hungarian national hero, Vlach?  And why did you remove the source? There was a source on the Catholic enciklopedia... You are vandal?
+[[User:PZJTF|PZJTF]]

Revision as of 20:06, 10 June 2009

Archives

Detail

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

Mircea Eliade splitting proposal

Ping-pong

Vandalism?

Roma minority

Re:Cofa

Anatol E. Baconsky DYK

problem

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

Re: 1848 revolution

Apologies to everyone and another notice

Capisco

AfD nomination of Domenico Pellegrini Giampietro

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

New thread

Note

Romanian workers sport organisation in 1931?

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

Ciao!

Biserica Neagră

Maccabi Bucuresti

De la Fălticeni

Thanks

Poezii

New WikiProject

Romanians

Mattias Corvinus

All hail the cabinets!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

just some edits... back "there"

Re: "papist"

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

DYK for Alexandru Macedonski

Vilna Troupe, redux

DYK for Sever Voinescu

The Romanian electoral system

Whitewashing political biographies is against Wikipedia policies as well

Hello friend

A video just for information

Happy New Year!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

Roma as a Romani group

Tags on Romanians

New thread

Minor

The ţinuturi

Romani MoS

Unitarism in Transylvania

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

Lil' item

Symbolism articles

Warwick the Kingmaker

Anglicans

Trivia

Check it out

Re: Time Zones

Re: Good stuff

Georgescu

DYK for Paul Georgescu

Antonescu

Capital punishment

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

Hi

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The template: let's make it look nice

Re: Gheorghe Argeşanu and other images

C-Class

fondane.eu

Situl RESTITUTIO BENJAMIN FONDANE - www.fondane.eu

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Please in the future put a discussion on the talk page on some articles for deletion

Good God, would you please stop deleting all parenthetical descriptions

Time out

Moving down