User talk:Dahn/Archive 22

NO

I think its in the past tense. Its too much information. Do you think we should change it back?PelleSmith 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria (World War II)

Dahn, could you please take a look at Transnistria (World War II). The article makes the claim that the Romanian authorities were worse of persecuting Jews and Roma than Nazi Germany. I don't think that portrayal is fully accurate, however my familiarity with this period is limited. I believe that you are more knowledgeable in this field, so I was wondering if you could give the page a glance and give your opinion. TSO1D 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cantemir

Sure. I could just write it out but that's dangerous with old orthography. I have a copy of his history book somewhere, I'll check it out to see whether there is a transcription with his name in it. He is titled Bogdan Beyi and called Kantemiroglu Dmitri, but I need to check out Ottoman spelling. --Free smyrnan 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Western betrayal

Mentions Romania in the lead but there is no subsection. Could you a) remove it from the lead b) write a subsection about this concept in Romania?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Argetoianu

The question marks may be a bit off-putting, but if you wish, you can use the infoboxes I made here. Source: here; also includes a precise death date, which may or may not be accurate.

Thank you for the Irimescu edits. I sometimes smile at the vagaries of the wiki process. A few hours before writing his article I'd never heard of him. I then happened to see his picture here, and I thought he had an interesting face, so I decided to write on him. The other men on the page (Maniu and Tătărescu excepted), not being endowed with similarly intriguing faces (or at least hats), will probably remain article-less for a long while. Biruitorul 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you also for the RfC comment support - it's getting quite heated over there. If I may ask for your opinion on something: Anonimu has slapped a big NPOV tag on Ceauşescu family. But everything in there (save a couple of minor details) is from the linked article. Isn't there a rule that a legitimate source is enough to back what you write in an article? I would remove the tag myself, but I did want to check with you first. Biruitorul 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to engage Anonimu directly (...) and see what he says. As for the disambiguation page, which I didn't know about, I suppose the least disruptive solution would be to add a sentence along the lines of "These individuals were all members of the Ceauşescu family, which included a number of other less notable people, as described on that page."

ro:Evrei comunişti has gained an aura of respectability, in form if not in content. Are the statistics in the first paragraph reliable? Look at the talk page, and read the paragraph starting "Anclation ce descoperire..."! That guy really is a madman! Biruitorul 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone been banned from there? Someone should do an experiment, posing as an unreconstructed Guard member, and see what it takes to get banned. Incidentally, as to the Guard presence in the PCR, maybe we could find a way (a footnote?) to include that delightful rhyme:

Căpitane nu fi trist

Garda merge înainte

Prin partidul comunist! (Sourced quite effectively here)

Regarding Argetoianu: do you think Procesul comunismului is reliable? The infoboxes that I made might be distracting, but we should probably mention all ministerial posts he held and the dates when he held then. Biruitorul 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! Biruitorul 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Mr. Foamete has certainly earned a place in our planned anti-Communist resistance article. Biruitorul 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

What do you mean by "the Russian side of the matter has also blossomed hit-and-run editors"? Can you name any? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I don't deny that there are Russian nationalists but I'm afraid you can't name any whose destructive activity even remotely approached that of Molobo, Greier, or Bonaparte. The answer is simple: Russian trolls are neutralized by Russian wikipedians, while certain Polish wikipedians encourage Polish trolls, for some reason. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah

Indeed. Boogie Dahn. ;-) Khoikhoi 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Romanian Social Democratic Party (defunct)

I'm not sure I understand the reasons behind your creation of this article. There can be several I can think of. Some reasons may also mean that you should have also created articles for "PNL, defunct" and "PNT, defunct". Other reasons may come in contradiction with "no original research". Can you enlighten me? Dpotop 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that PSD (today) = (so to say) PDSR != PSD (between WWI and 194?). But for me PSD (between WWI and 194?) != PSD (1990-200?). Similarly, the political continuity of PNT, PNL should be challenged, if you get into such details. Don't get me wrong, I don't criticise you, but encourage you to go all the way. From you, it may be accepted. :) Dpotop 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What I challenge is the ideological lineage. I have always found that the PNT continuity claim from interwar PNT is bogus. I thought that your re-organizing move could result in some clarification in this respect. Dpotop 22:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Link, etc.

Thank you. That link will be very useful when I get around to using it. Meanwhile, may I direct your attention to this list? If you know of any more elections, do put them in, and also if any of the terminology is wrong (legislative vs. general), that should be fixed. Eventually the article itself will need to be converted into proper English, and perhaps a Polish-style table made for more recent elections.

By the way - and I certainly don't mean to insult your intelligence; I just thought this might have slipped past you - are you familiar with the site-specific search function on Google, where you can search for results from one site only? Here's an example. It sometimes yields rather fruitful results. Biruitorul 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The number of political detainees released in 1964 was somewhat higher according to this piece. Biruitorul 03:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If the term used is "general", then I think we should use that. Anyway, compare, say, with New Zealand, a monarchy like pre-1947 Romania: the term "general election" is apparently used even when only the legislature is being contested. However, republics like the United States or France tend to have different articles for legislative and presidential elections. So I'm fine with "general" until 1946, "legislative" and "presidential" since 1990, and whatever fits for the intervening years (PCR results: 1948 - 93.2%; 1952 - 98.84; 1957 - 98.88%; 1961 - 99.77%; 1965 - 99.85%; 1969 - 99.75; 1975 - 98.80%; 1980 - 98.52%; 1985 - 99.73%). However, I'm not adamant about any one particular course. I only just did the expansion, and I knew you'd called 1946 a general election, so I based by naming partly on that, but we can easily change it at this point, since it's a very new addition.

Eventually, like I did with Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria, I envision an article giving an overview on the subject by tying together the big repression sites/prisons - Sighet, Gherla, Aiud, Piteşti, Jilava, Râmnicu Sărat, Târgu Ocna, the Canal, etc. (with separate articles for some of them, like the Canal, which already has one, or Piteşti, which should). Within that, we can go into more detail about the amnesty. Biruitorul 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do indeed know that game, having played it in the past with Anonimu. With the magic of redirects, the name won't matter all that much. I wouldn't mind fusing the post-'89 election articles, because it isn't that much work. However, since, after 2004, elections will only coincide in 2024, 2044, etc., we'll still end up having separate "legislative" and "presidential" articles. So the question is: do we want "general" for 1990-2004, followed by a split, or do we want to retain the current split for post-89 and keep going with it? As I said, I slightly prefer the latter, but it's not my biggest concern either way. Biruitorul 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let the mergers begin (with admin help)! Biruitorul 04:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hungarians

Do you realize that you reverted to a text with bad grammar? Read again. Dpotop 13:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Read again:

This area that includes the historic regions of Banat, Crişana and Maramureş.

Hint: where is the predicate? Dpotop 14:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As to including Transylvania again, I believe it's normal. I didn't imagine you'll make a fuss about it. You have differences between "historical" and "current". For instance, Moldova != Moldova. :) But let's forget this. Dpotop 14:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin

Speedied as recreation of deleted article. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November) to confirm that deletion was upheld. - Jmabel | Talk 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nu ti-e rusine sa-ti bati joc de Sorin Cerin?

Stiu ca vorbesti aceasta limba si nu ne vine sa credem de ce esti in stare.Ultimul articol despre Cerin a fost cu adevarat perfect.Ce reguli Wikipedia incalca?Este un scriitor vandut in mai mult de cinci mii de carti? Da! Intruneste toate normele de a fi in aceasta enciclopedie?Da!In 'Timpul Liber' nu a fost vorba nici o secunda de Wikipedia Americana ci de acea Romana.Oricum vom creea la nesfarsit un nou articol cu Sorin Cerin,pana cand vom fi lasati liberi sa avem si noi un site al nostru despre acest filosof.Cateva zile in urma rusii din Transnistria au vrut sa ne stearga,acum Americanii.De ce?Nu intelegem de ce ,odata ce Cerin ,indeplineste toate conditiile Wikipedia este sters?Nu avem nimic cu tine si nici cu cel cu care colaborezi.mai mult chiar va dorim succes in continuare. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Question

I've always wanted to know this...what does "besh" mean? Khoikhoi 08:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's exactly what I thought. Thanks, Khoikhoi 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you double check this

I wonder how you'd look at the replacement of a reference by fact template here. And the POV change. I have tried to restore NPOV and content, but this is not my region of expertize... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More refs removed, moe POVed language inserted. If you know who'd be interested in this, please let them know, as I wrote, it's not my area of expertise by those edits look highly POVed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of using appropriate talk to discuss your grievances, I see you spamming and forum shopping again. Now we all see what your idea of NPOV is: unsustainable claims about the Dacian chieftain who founded Khotin, about the "vlakhs" who were supposedly documented in the area in the 10th century, about the slave-trading Field-Marshal Munnich, the "Romanian-Nazi liberation" of the area during WWII, the "Soviet dictatorship" in the 1960s-1980s... This is pretty disgusting. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On December 14, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grigore Preoteasa, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for bringing Romania to the front page. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On December 19, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Piteşti prison, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Many thanks again Dahn. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian minority in Romania

Please, read the section Hungarian_minority_in_Romania#After_World_War_II and tell me whether you agree that the citation "summarizes" well the situation of before 1989. Do you really feel that "Romanians were encouraged to think that all their problems were due to Hungarians"? Dpotop 12:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for help on Cluj-Napoca Reformed Synagogue article. --Roamataa 17:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Piteşti

First of all, great, great work. Second, my tentative thinking was to have one all-encompassing article on the Romanian Gulag. The title might be any one of a number: "Prisons in Communist Romania", "Political repression in ...", "Political prisons and forced labour camps in...", "Human rights in..." We ought to pick one. In this article, I envision something along these lines: a paragraph or two for each site, with links to larger articles if they exist. And of course a template linking the important prisons. Also, this article would not simply be a list - it would tie together some overarching themes, like who was responsible, why it happened, the international context, general statistics on the number of detained, something on the amnesties, etc. Does this help, or should I be more specific?

I will have time for proofreading PCR soon, so no problem. Biruitorul 18:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

One point: would you mind pointing out where Father Calciu is identified as a Guard member in the source you cited? I couldn't find the place, but I don't dispute the assertion - he admits to it himself here, in the section "Eraţi student la Medicină..." Also, I think he would have been in the youth wing, as he was 15 when it was suppressed in 1941. Or perhaps he joined illegally after the war. Biruitorul 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Well, I think "Political repression in Communist Romania" strikes the right balance - it's narrow enough that it excludes common criminals, but broad enough to (theoretically) include arrests, prisons, camps, deportations, etc. Of course, when we get to do an article on topics such as censorship, like this one, then that will be separate, but we'll link to it from the main one. In sum, this should be a good framework, but if you disagree, any of the proposed titles might work. By the way, where should Human rights in Romania be taken? Do we keep it mainly to post-'89, or extend it back to the 19th century? Biruitorul 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I would link this one to Human Rights, although not all communist human rights violations consisted in political repression - there was, one imagines, some torture of ordinary criminals, plus capital punishment. Eventually, something will be done about that too. More to the point, you raise some very valid potential objections, but this is the best I could come up with - I say we plunge ahead. If need be, we can move the page at a later date. However, if you have a better idea, I'd be glad to hear it, and also I think we should consult with a third party (say Jmabel) and even invite Anonimu (though copious "cn" and NPOV tags are a guarantee from him). Biruitorul 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Phanariotes cat question

Hello! I noticed that you picked up on the Phanariotes category. I found your family subcategorization very useful (and added a few families too). A question that propped up in my mind: There are some members of these families for whom the Phanariote description is valid -- for example Alexandros Kallimachis -- Ottoman diplomat etc. Some, like Scarlat Callimachi come from a Phanariote lineage but themselves are not Phanariote.

So how shall we proceed? Should Alexandros have the Phanariote category added as well as the Callimachi family category? What is your opinion? What makes sense? Regards. --Free smyrnan 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ROmafia

I've blocked him. I'm pretty sure it's Norby, after all the man (boy?) has got an interest in castles. La ReVeDeRe, Khoikhoi 05:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Yesterday, I contributed in all conscience with some important and sourced information to the Piteşti prison, an entry created by you, which I heartily welcome and which I have proposed for DYK,. Your reaction to my edits was both unjust and disruptive: you absurdly accused me of plagiarism (!), impertinently asking me where did I get the text from. You already have a record of confrontational and disruptive behaviour. It is deeply deplorable, that a valuable contributor like you repeatedly engages in disruptive behaviour. Please, try to refrain from aggressive and offensive disruptions. If you continue, I am afraid that this will prevent you to ever become an admin. --Vintila Barbu 08:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, I've seconded your remarks; I have some of the same concerns, though I don't consider this a clearcut case. I have asked him for an explanation. - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Warning

As this post and this one show, you persevere in absurdly accusing me of plagiarism. Your arguments are:

1. that “you have admitted to have copied text in order to override your own problems in expressing yourself in English.”. This is strictly a LIE.
2. That my English in the incriminated edit is simply too good for me, ergo, it must be copied from somewhere. This is an insulting insinuation, representing but a further personal attack.
3. that from my tone and “distance to the events described” in the respective edit one can infer another author. This is no insulting insinuation but a paranoia bordering accusation, actually such absurd and arbitrary that it deserves no comment
4. that the exchange we previously had (your request and my answer) can be understood as a recognition of plagiarism; this is simply not true: you’re taking out of the context and distorting my words to make them serve your slandering purpose; in fact, our exchange addressed the art. SLOMR: since this entry refers to facts of recent history, I was concerned about rendering the facts in the most faithful way, reproducing wordings from official documents; against this background, I agreed that this procedure could give the impression of copying phrases; there is not one single copypasted sentence in my SLOMR art. (interesting, how it is always the victim of a calumny who has to clear himself, and not the slanderer)

Your unjust and baseless accusations amount to serious personal attacking. This behaviour is systematic and deliberate.

I am prompting you to produce proofs of your accusations of plagiarism: an original source (be it a single sentence) and an edit of mine reproducing it.

I am still ready to consider your excuses. Should this not happen, I have to undertake the necessary steps in such cases. --Vintila Barbu 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've started an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vintila Barbu. Dahn, I'm guessing that you will also want to certify the basis for the dispute. - Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote (re: SLOMR) "Where in an RFC is this supposed to be done?" To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a well-established way to add to an RFC, it's usually done informally. My best suggestion is to be explicit about adding material (that is, date & sign the additions, much as you would on a talk page, in the relevant sections). Since the certified basis for the dispute is basically just a statement of concern and a need to air the matter, I don't think that will create any confusion. - Jmabel | Talk 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Given your remark on my talk page, maybe I should have been clearer. Add your material in the relevant sections (e.g. Evidence) but be clear what you are adding on what date. That makes it clear, for example, that you are adding more material to something I already signed in an earlier version. - Jmabel | Talk 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interaction with other editors

I've received a rather irate communication from another editor about your editing style, and claimed wholesale reversion to previous versions because you reject content or stylistic changes. I have had a quick look around, I don't think there is any pressing problem to solve right now (I get that kind of message all the time, I am certainly not inclined to simply take them at face value!) but I'd like to ask you to take a little more care to avoid the appearance of asserting ownership of articles. This edit [1] is an example. I don't see it as problematic - it almost certainly is easier to revert than to reinsert all the diacritics, as you suggest - but the edit summary reads more aggressively than you probably intended. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 10:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)