User talk:Dahn/Archive 41

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Minor

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Destroyer of Giurtelec

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

Lil' item

Do you know who "Cînde" is, listed as a Romanian poet here in this Wiki list [1]? I couldn't find out online. A from L.A. (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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: [2], [3] (!). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I have no idea what made you think I'm that old, but I ain't. Also, next time when, if ever, I'm temporarily incapacitated and I can't reply, please refrain from mentioning me (that includes placeholders like "you know who"). Anonimu (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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: [4], [5], [6] and the Nepecerişti (a different party): [7].

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Slavery

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Dahn, may I ask you to intervene here, lest I be accused of revert-warring? Not that the prior version was great, but it's in our interests to avoid another Csangos-like disaster. (This individual is in any case worth watching - the damage he's done to articles like Hungary (the history section...) is already palpable.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My eyes! My eyes! - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

FYI

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Corvinus

I known, that my english command of a language is not correct, but was expect, that what wrote in the article emphatic. The Vojk name not it seems Vlach name, some thurgh the territory (Wallachia), accordingly the Cumans also Wallachians along with the Vlachs and others nations. Doncsecz^znánje 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:DYKs

Thanks for replying - my irritation was at having to unexpectedly go through several already approved DYKs for what seemed relatively minor issues but I respect your views on this. Although, ... that Constantin Mille worked on the same organization as Constantin Rădulescu-Motru"? is not really comparable as (1) you have not mentioned the organization and (2) it is two names without any description for either. I don't believe I would ever submit a DYK as vague as this but if I did and it was problematic I am sure it would be changed either before or after posting. The bold link is the updated one, the one that attracts the eye, so anyone who clicks would realise the occupation, life details, etc. of the subject even if the fact in the hook is not expanded upon. Take the current set, the one which I find intriguing is - "that Rafael Palmeiro won the Gold Glove Award at first base in 1999 despite appearing in only 28 games at the position?" I have not a clue what this is about... what is this game/award or who is the person? Questions which are forming in my mind as I type. If I want to know I will have to click, otherwise I will remain lost in ignorance forever. I also have a terrible record of not knowing what is popular or unpopular and have discovered many of my DYKs are either more known or unknown than I could have known. The irony is that I aimed several of those DYKs at the tastes and knowledge of American readers (which I don't normally try to do) and yet they have drawn more comment than unsual... interesting all the same. I hope I have not offended and apologies if I have. --candle•wicke 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats for Alexandru Toma

Very nice article. I knew you were the author before looking at its history. User:Dpotop

Erm... Thanks? Dahn (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dahn! I really appreciate your advice and encouragement. I am working on the issue of references. Given the level of your knowledge, you seem to be a professional historian. Cheers, Peterkecs (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: thanks

Why, my pleasure. And I look forward to seeing what you have coming down the pipeline. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and this could be problematic - the "we invented everything" mindset. For instance, Paulescu is given as "the discoverer of insulin", a contention supported by Nicolae Paulescu, directly contradicted by Frederick Banting, John James Richard Macleod and Charles Best, and explicated at Insulin#Discovery_and_characterization. Of course, this type of list has little use for the subtlety present in the last article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My own inclination would be to request a move of Category:Romanian publishers to Category:Romanian publishers (people), and to request deletion of Category:Romanian landowners - it's not an intrinsic characteristic, and they're not notable for owning land (unlike aristocrats). (At least one of them isn't notable for anything, but that's another story.) Subsequently, we should move to delete some of those articles. (I wonder if this will grow to encompass Adam and Eve, and if he has read WP:V.)
Also, any thoughts on these two sterile edit wars? I'm willing to let go of the dates at the first one (though I really don't see why), but what he's doing to the template seems rather odd, along with his edit summaries. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I must say, I love this trivia flood. No comment on the first two (or this one), but for Romania-UK, which could actually be written (in theory), we get one line on a fairly marginal incident (which a) isn't really connected to the topic and b) is already covered here), while nothing, of course, is mentioned about, say, the world wars, Ceauşescu's visit to the Queen, etc.

I don't know if you saw the expanded biography of Olivia Manning, but one line that caught my eye is: "She undertook a dangerous journalistic assignment to interview former Romanian Prime Minister Iuliu Maniu in Cluj, the capital of Transylvania, a city that was at the time full of German military". Verifiability, not truth, but still, does this ring true? I thought German troops didn't enter Romania until late 1940 (when, in any case, Cluj was in Hungary), so what would they have been doing there in late 1939-early 1940? Guarding a consulate, perhaps? - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, and I hope you resolve whatever came up. The only semi-urgent matter lies just above this line. Alternate hook welcome, as well as perhaps a more balanced portrayal of his Communist-era activities, if needed, or any other improvements. But verification is the priority, as always. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, Dahn. I'm going on a break myself, but first, this is bound to be of interest to you (it's closing soon). You missed the discussion on this - really quite abusive, pretending that ancient Greek influence in North Africa has something to do with a state that has only existed since 1962! While I'm away, issues at Florica Prevenda and Vasile Troian could use some attention; Florentina Mosora remains, well...; and some cabinet members still need improved biographies, like Videanu, Blaga and Ridzi (whose scandal receives barely a mention). Dc76, if you're reading this, feel free to help out too. Ah, and Zece Prăjini, Potlogeni, Borla, Sălaj, Prislop, Sibiu, Cuciulata, Ravensca, and Jac

still need to be redirected and possibly merged! Well, enough of a to-do list for now. See you later. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Balas

Hello Dahn.I need some advice: my information sources are people who have been personally involved in the events or people who know/have directly known such people. One source has agreed to be named: dr. Egon Balas, professor at Carnegie-Mellon University. You can google dr. Balas. How does one use such references? One option is to first publish a paper and then use it a reference! Thanks,Peterkecs (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

IPA

Sorry for not replying sooner. Yes, I will try and IPA those articles. I must admit though that with some names I have doubts as to how they are pronounced, and it's very hard to find sources on that. There is no Romanian dictionary that gives name pronunciation (none that I know of, anyway), so in those cases if I'm lucky enough I will find a documentary or an interview on YouTube, otherwise I'll just have to give up.

In the early days of Wikipedia the pronunciation was indeed sometimes indicated in the style you mentioned (meer-CHE-ah, etc.), but this was not considered professional enough and now IPA seems to be the only accepted way. I can do the English pronunciation too, when there is a very widespread English version of a Romanian name. Again, I will need to know it or hear it. I know there is a name pronunciation guide somewhere on the internet, but I found several mistakes so I wouldn't consider that a reliable source.

Regarding Tristan Tzara, see User talk:Kwamikagami‎#Tzara IPA.

Cheers. — AdiJapan 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, could you help me with the proper pronunciation for these names?

• (Anghel) Saligny --- French-style gny and Romanian stress?
• Henri (Coandă) --- French-style Henri
• (Alexandru) Lahovari --- la-ho-VA-ri in 4 syllables?
• (Virgil) Madgearu --- mad-gea or ma-gea?
• (Mărgărita) Miller-Verghy --- Romanian style? where is the stress?
• Mateiu (Caragiale) --- with or without u?
• (Bogdan Petriceicu) Hasdeu --- s? ş? j?
• (Ovid / Nicolae) Densusianu --- s? ş?

Thanks. — AdiJapan 13:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I just finished IPA-ing those articles, using the phonetic info you provided (for which I also thank you). Remind me if I missed any. Also, whenever you need some more IPAs, just tell me. I'm glad I can be of some help. At the same time I am aware that most readers can make little use of the IPA transcriptions. Especially the English natives are used to other ways of indicating the pronunciation, and reading letters one by one is not something they do naturally.

I still have a bit of doubt about Ovid Densusianu, this time regarding his first name. Is it stressed O-vid or o-VID? I chose the latter for the article (considering that it must be a short form of Ovidiu and supposing the stress didn't move), but if I was wrong let me know, or you could fix it yourself, by moving the stress marker before o.

The question about Lahovary having 3 or 4 syllables boils down to whether the final i is a full vowel or not (you have a full vowel in codri and a pseudo-vowel in nori). The exact same problem occurs in the name Mavrogheni, which many people pronounce in 3 syllables, while the correct pronunciation requires 4. For this I have one of Mioara Avram's books, so it's properly sourced, but in the case of Lahovary I heard it pronounced in 4 syllables (stressed on -va-), recently, probably in a TV show with Pleşu, Liiceanu, Djuvara or anyway one of those people who know what they're talking about, and I wrote it down, but I didn't also write who said it that way.

Anyway, enough with my phonetic chitchat. If you need my help you know where to find me. Cheers! — AdiJapan 10:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Image of Romania abroad

Hi Dahn. Do you know anything about this report. I'm interested with a view to overhauling or removing completely this section. The whole thing seems so subjective as to be beyond analysis from an NPOV perspective. (I may not be able to reply to you for some time). Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

On doing some follow-up on the report previously alluded to, I came across this little gem on YouTube. I think while there is such a capacity for wit, satire and self-reflection, there is still hope of 'redemption' ;-) RashersTierney (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dahn

Left you a short reply at my place. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dan Lungu

On July 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dan Lungu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 (

c|s 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Category arguments

The above paragraphs were very open and explained a lot, now I want to remove them and put the events of late June into the edit history. I also don't like how I typed in that edit summary that the one category for surnames (Category:Surnames) was "stupid"; no, this is a rather obtuse, recondite abstruse matter, and neither of us were fully prepared for the debate. I was in a very agitated and confused state at the time, but I do feel that my preference for Category:Surnames by language shows a preference for a better version of categorization than one category. And Category:Surnames by language is what I initially suggested in that paragraph that I posted before you came and began posting. In my confusion (due to 2007 etc.), I felt that naturalized surnames can be handled with discretion, similar to naturalization of foods etc., but I can't get into this too much now, and I can't say at the moment that such a system can be worked out with fine-tuning. I do say that you came and piled a lot and opened a debate that I was not looking to get into just then, and I am suspicious of your intentions, though my suspicions about you tend to be exaggerated and you usually turn out to be less than villainous. My preference for Category:Surnames by language and Category:Thracian tribes are preferences for what I say are evidently better modes of categorization. I am going to begin trimming and removing a lot of these posts, starting with the above two. This debate did occasion a lot of food for thought, and I regret that my talk page was deleted, because I can't access the posts and I would like to re-read the debate there. I know you are not able to reconstitute that page either. 76.208.180.222 (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My User talk page was deleted too soon following the outbursts, but I remember one statement of yours that I didn't address back then, about "How I don't see a problem with Illyrian name, yet American name strikes me as..."---well, I don't know why you were getting at me about this or what your conceptions are, but with Illyrian there are the Illyrian languages, there is no American language per se, we have articles such as English name etc. I have studied the Paleo-Balkans for awhile and I am more aware than you of the diversity of tongues in the ancient Balkans, and the problems of classification, potentially anachronistic or anachronistic ethnography, etc. Many Illyrian names are known to be from Greek or Veneto-Liburnian or Thracian etc. However in that field, the specialists have done their best to outline an Illyrian onomastic category, so no, I do not see a problem with Illyrian name, it would be a useful article and based on linguistic conventions. Even referring to all "Illyrians" as Illyrians is a convention taken up from Classical writings. Same with Thracians, largely following Herodotus' statements and how they match up with current thinking in the field. To get back to the Surname discussion, I saw that statement "once Fooians adopt a surname, it becomes a Fooian surname" etc. etc. at the Category Decision debate, but while one cat does away with any vague element ("at what point does..." (*1) ), one cat also leaves us with a vast unnavigable cat which could be winnowed linguistically. A lot of editors are not bothered by the pedantic nitpicking, for example User:Dbachmann an excellent editor on many linguistic topics just leaves the Cat Arabic given names here which is still there etc. and should remain there etc. 76.208.174.47 (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(*1) I went into a discussion of a similar arbitrariness in how foods are categorized at this website, but I don't like discussing foods too much, and a person can say "Arbitrariness in that case or other cases does not make arbitrariness in this case okay", but my intent was to show that there is a lot of arbitrariness at this website that we often miss, and looking just at some arbitrariness in anthroponym cats is unfair. With anthroponyms, I'm not sure how the references can help and I don't know how long this one cat will last, it would be better to have strictly linguistic categories than have one cat: Lupescu in category Romanian language surnames, Parker (surname) in category English language surnames, Macedonski in category Slavic language surnames etc., better than one cat. You one catters are not "right", you guys are just swinging a wrecking ball. And Thracian tribes category: that is much more clear cut: standard conventions in the field:Category:Illyrian tribes and Category:Thracian tribes are legitimate conventional cats. The experts in the field are calling so-and-so tribe "Thracian", so we place Category:Thracian tribes. 76.208.174.47 (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We see your point about the Thracian tribes cat 76, but let go of the anthroponyms. "One cat, one heart, one love". Besides you have not clarified your taxonomical system for the anthroponyms, though at first on your talk page which was erased ("can be categorized according to language of origin" is what I said in my first paragraph on the topic there at my talk page, and I still prefer that to just one cat) and now again you are suggesting a strictly linguistic system, preferable to one cat. Previously on your talk page (after your inital suggestion of language of origin categorization) you suggested a linguistic system, but supplemented by categories for naturalized names, and you cited naturalized foods as an example (pizza), but the criteria remained vague. Maybe something like that will be worked out in the future, for now it seems the one catters have got their way though many rebel cats are still in existence, such as Category:Arabic given names, Category:Given names by culture, Category:Surnames by culture; the one catters think they have somehow scored. They are just swinging a wrecking ball and leaving us with one cat, which does not satisfy you; but working out a better system is too time-consuming, although a strictly linguistic system sounds better than one cat. Now, enough at this talk page, we see how such arguments get you moody, but if they want one cat...or else they want a clear taxonomical system...or else they want to play a game of Logic against you: Logic-Illogic-Whatever-Logic: they are spreading their plumage and challenging you: Logic-Illogic-Whatever-Logic: not drug-addled or addled by: Is One Cat sufficient: Is it Insufficient: well we now have more than one cat for surnames again:Category:Surnames by language. 76.208.174.47 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You came to my talk page to open the discussion about the categories, we were not communicating for awhile when you came. You saw that I was in an agitated mood and I was venting on other editors who got on my case in even little ways. I was right about the Thracian tribes cat (I don't recall an argument from you against that), and then I suggested for the names, "Categorizing by language of origin". Then you came to my talk page. I still want the Thracian tribes category, and categorizing according to language of origin IMO is better than one cat. There is an element of arbitrariness with names that become naturalized in other cultures beyond the language of origin (that was the main argument at the category discussion and voting page) : and I showed that degrees of arbitrariness are present in other categories as well, and I am not particularly bothered by the occasional vague determinations: Stipcevic, a Slavic surname, but let's say some Romanians have it: in such a case, at least in my system Stipcevic will be in Category:Slavic surnames. Problems of naturalization can be worked out case by case if need be, and if edit-wars start and no clear criterion is available, well I would be interested to see such an edit-war. Your previous meantion of homonyms: not only can they be on the same page with different cats, we can also have Ion (Romanian name), and Ion (ancient Greek name): such disambiguated name articles already exist. You came to my talk page to discuss this when I was in a very moody state, so really you have nothing to complain about. If your intent was to score against me in a Category competition, I am not claiming to be infallible (I have made many mistakes, many at this website), and after what I went through, I think I'm doing fine. But I still have to heal more. I think you should not have come to my talk page,, because you bothered me by some turns of phrases in your posts on my page, and whatever your intents were (maybe your intent was simply clean categorization of a kind that suits you), my intent is to have more specific cats for those articles. As this discussion becomes part of the past, I also want to remind you that you put way too much of your creativity and your free-time into Wikipedia mainspace: if that is "Where you does the magic", you should consider new avenues, and I still don't like the one category. I am fairly liberal; I grew up in Los Angeles and my experience of ethnic and language diversity started from before grade school; I know a lot about the problems of ethnography today and in the past; among my friends are Japanese-American girls with given names such as Cynthia (however they have surnames from the Japanese language). I still am looking forward to more specific categories for given names and surnames. 76.208.172.125 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The categories are back, and legit, the opposing editors know about them and have agreed (W.A.S. and his pals, etc.): see Category:Surnames by language. This was my initial suggestion, categorized according to language of origin, then you came to my talk page with your Fooian argument, from that initial Category debate page. 76.208.170.29 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask Bogdangiusca's opinion about this category situation, but instead I used that internet time to examine Bogdan's post, from July 2003:

"One way to explain this is that Romanian/Dacian is in fact proto-latin, a language from which Latin evolved. Even Dacians from the Roman Empire were mostly living in mountains and there were not so often contacts with Roman cities (mostly in lowlands). And also the Roman occupation lasted only around 150 years, less than England's domination and most colonists and soldiers were not from Rome, but from other previously occupied provinces and it's hard to believe they could teach Latin in its whole complexity to the locals.

Another thing that could enforce this theory is that Romanian keeps some characteristics of classical Latin grammer not found or simplified in other Romance languages (even Italian), like declensions, neutre gender, verb tenses, etc.

Also, on a more subjective tone, once someone learns Romanian, learning another language (latin or even just indo-european) much easily.

It is believed that the Latins (to become Romans after the founding of Rome in 700 BC) came to Italian peninsula only in the 1st millenium BC and the most likely place to be their origin can't be Northern Europe (no language connection to German), nor Western Europe (Gauls, Celts), but Danube region, where the Dacians lived. There are quite a few historians that agree to this theory, but still not enough physical proofs. We just know that the Danube culture of the Dacian was pretty advanced at the time (clay plates writing even older than Sumer)

The only proof of an independent Dacian language from Latin is the 200 words that are believed to be of Dacian origin, some of them are also found in Albanian (they have a language based on the local Thracian dialects) and some in the language of the Balts. But the Dacians were just a tribe of the Thracians (as Herodot said) and they shared some vocabulary, but the differences were pretty big.

Oh, and there are some similarities of Romanian with Sanskrit (about 500 words, for example "doina" = some type of mourning song -> "daina" in Sanskrit).

Another evidence is that of there are many words from Sardinian which are closer to Romanian than to Italian, French, Spanish or even Latin. That was explained by saying that the same rules of language developement were used in both places. (as example: "limba" in Romanian and Sardinian as opposed to all other Romance languages: langue, lingua, etc. and "cantigu" in Sardinian, "cantec" in Romanian as oposed to canzone, chanson etc). Could it be that not Romans colonized Sardinia, but another Dacian tribe as the Latins ?"

Bogdan 11:25 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---Whatever logic. 76.208.170.29 (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way there are some other threads on my deleted talk page which I can't take up anymore, such as when I said that I often find guys like Ernst (and Dali even more so I think) to be too contrived, I wasn't referring to how long it took to paint a piece (Picasso or Braque or Miro did not spin off paintings in minutes), or to how much planning (Picasso's Guernica etc. was quite planned), rather, here is what I'm talking about:File:L'Ange du Foyeur.jpg. That painting is an amazing transcription of a dream-like world, but frankly something about it looks corny to me---maybe because the image is surreal, but the technique is uninteresting, to me. No textures or color studies, the study there is a transcription of a vision, and it is true that many of the visions (that are seen, including by me) have that look, and using a different technique would not bring it across. Yeah, I like that kind of stuff to, I liked it more so in my boyhood/teens when I thought guys like Dali were like the best, and I have some drawings from my teens of plant-like hands clutching crystal spheres that were Ernst inspired etc. etc. But when it comes to "absolute preferences" as we were trying to sketch out, I prefer not those paintings by Dali, Ernst etc. where the "high surrealist virtuosity" is shown, rather I prefer something like Miro's Harlequinade or Fernand Leger's City, 1919. But Ernst was versatile in what he presented, and did not restrict himself to what I'm calling the "high surrealist" style (although I think Miro's Harlequinade in spirit is as "high surrealist" in its own way as any of those more typical surrealist paintings which I am referring to). Ernst's Black sun, 1927, is an example of a very different style, and even At the first clear word doesn't have the look that L'ange du foyeur has: a painting which is not quite among my absolute preferences, as I am saying, nor is Ernst's Ubu Imperator, which is cool, but doesn't it kind of look like it could be the cover for a collection of early sci-fi? But what I was saying is that stuff is not among my favorite painting styles, not that I don't like it. I don't know if you have ever even tried painting, but you may as well, like I said before. I can draw in various evolved rendering styles, but you don't have to have much virtuosity in drawing in order to paint. As I said, I know several people who can't draw much, but they are painting. I don't see what you find so fun about editing articles as intensely as you do, but that is your interest, and I know even pointing that out is not polite, but maybe you have to just---find other hobbies that will engage you. 76.208.180.222 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Alex, enough. It's bad enough that you avoid your block by going into IP mode (note that I did not report you for it, but you know full well what consequences it carries). Whatever you chose to do next, rest assured I don't bother to read your posts, do not enjoy getting them, and have nothing more to say to you ever. Now please stop spamming my page, or I will make personally sure you lose your editing privileges entirely and for ever. Dahn (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this last post is not included though. I won't post new posts but I would like to trim myself the earlier posts, and will do so in a sec if that's okay. Well okay, journalistic guy, later. And I'm in talks to get my block lifted later, so take that into consideration. 76.208.180.222 (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Now wait a minute, you came to my talk page and got into the Category debate uninvited and you annoyed and bothered me, because it was as if you came to argue with me because you had something against me. Your position came out as unaccepted (Category:Surnames by language is back). So there you go, I didn't fucking ask you to come to my talk page so you can post your "I'm such a liberal new Romanian" shit on my talk page, arguing for a position that has been discarded. And if you push to get me banned "for ever", you only confirm what many suspect about you. But I already posted what I wanted to post and have wrapped up this discussion. 76.208.180.222 (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may (I'm just not going to argue with your projections), the difference you're missing is this one: I never cursed you. And that is where I draw the line: even if I would want to continue discussing matters with you, I would demean myself by pretending it didn't happen. Now go away. Seriously. Final warning. Dahn (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

Sorry, I should have first commented on the talk page and then make change in the article. I agree with your comment, but ... you did not say what issues. It would be more constructive to add these tags section-wise and sentence-wise, where they can be addressed. Please, I would really appreciate if you do so. Otherwise nobody would address the issues. You see that many issues are not addressed even when they are spelled out, and you want them addressed when you don't even say exactly what they are. I do realize that would be a lot of work, but that would also be very constructive, and I've known you as that kind of editor. Dc76\^talk 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mircea Nedelciu

On July 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mircea Nedelciu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject DYK 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI

You are invited to join WikiProject TRANSWIKI and join the sub language project of your choice. The aim is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from other wikipedias by language and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge between other wikipedias. I will create a specific Romanian group later if you are interested? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/Romanian has been started. The project is intended to be a loose organization of wikipedians whose work often involves translating articles from Romanian. Your presence would be greatly needed. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No you've got the wrong idea. I am well aware of some of the flaws in Romanian wiki and the idea is NOT to translate unreferenced articles which may be riddled with POV and well just be awful. If you think this is my idea I'm disappointed that you also don't think I am intelligent to exercise caution in such a project. The idea is that the project identifies what is missing and then manual editors in collaboration with wikiprojects and more informed individuals such as yourself for Romani for example decide what is notable and then start the article but using Reliable sources from elsewhere. In reagrds to Romanian wiki this would especially be the case because from what I've seen very few of its articles are of a good enough quality for here. The project is as much about drawing up a notable list of missing articles than it is creating articles andthe whole reason why I proposed the project was to improve the quality of transwikiying by using reliable sources to back up content for that very reason that lesser informed individuals working independently may create exactly the sort of rubbish articles that you loathe. This is exactly why an editor such as yourself would be needed to ensure that poor content is NOT transferred and to make a judgement on what or what is suitable as indeed to what article is notable by using reliable sources away from Romanian wiki. We may be able to generate a list of missing notable articles but if the equivalent articles on Romanian wiki are shoddy then they will not be translated, they will be created using reliable sources. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand how you see things now. I also find it laudible how you feel you must turn every article you create into what reads as a top class article with a tremendous amount of information. Ideally of course we want every article on Romania and any other like this. The problem I see is that we are missing a tremendous amount of articles which if written properly many of them would be of major importance added to wikipedia and our coverage. As you said the main problem in tackling a high number of red links is quality. I believe a stub if it contains some major facts and is reliably referenced is a progression, you on the otherhand would rather then article didn't exist until it was above a start class. I understand, that is often an ongoing dilemna that I face in that I want to trandfer as many articles as possible but I also wish every article could be started as a really good article each time. Maybe your approach is not compatible with such a project. Anyway,your work on Romanian literature articles has always been greatly appreciated as well as your presence on here even if you are not interested in the new project. Regards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)