User talk:Dahn/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy Easter![edit]

And my apologies for my prolonged silence — visiting hours at the château are few and far between :P Well, more later, but keep up the good work and have a prosperous spring. - Biruitorul Talk 05:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)[edit]

The March 2010 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) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceausescu execution video[edit]

Excuse me, I'm asking this question to a couple of people because it's urgent. Is the footage made on Nicolae Ceausescu's trial and execution in public domain or is it copyrighted? Thanks. --Vitilsky (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Pann[edit]

Salut! Intradevar, originea lui Pann este incerta, dar faptul ca "un singur grup" sustine originea lui roma este irelevant, intrucat era de asteptat ca majoritarilor sa nu le placa ideea ca unul din oamenii importanti ai culturii romane se trage dintr-o familie de romi. Este eterna poveste. In fine, sint de acord ca categorisirea lui ar trebui sa tina cont de aceasta incertitudine, totusi "Romani people and Romanipen in Romania" este mai degraba pt "entitati" relevante pt romi, decat pt indivizi. Chiar nu stiu care ar fi cea mai buna solutie. Kenshin (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nu chiar... in cartea "Elite rome", scrisa de 2 romani, este trecut si Anton Pann. Kenshin (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cred ca abordarea cea mai buna este "origine disputata, probabil roma". Cu siguranta ca au existat si neromi care sa practice caldararia, dar marea lor majoritate au fost romi, asa ca daca e sa o luam stiintific/matematic asta e teoria cea mai probabila. Plus inclinatia lui catre zona asta si chiar si infatisarea lui. Niste categorii de genul "Persoane cu posibila origine.." ar fi utile, dar asta ar deschide o imensa cutie a Pandorei, pt ca foarte multe personalitati din trecut, de peste tot, au origini incerte. O sa scot si cartea aia de la naftalina, ca nici n-am citit-o, doar am rasfoit-o. Kenshin (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Felix Aderca[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Felix Aderca, 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Sorban[edit]

Hi, should you have the time, could you check the recent edits on ro.wiki's Raoul Sorban article. Thanks, Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creanga (reply)[edit]

Dahn, you make a mountain out of a mole-hill. You have drawn a conclusion about me too quickly and you categorized me as a bad person without reason. I had not noticed that he was born 25 years before the union and I was wrong there (I take my fault).

I am not a Romanian nationalist at all, I just try to be fair. If you would follow my edits you would find for example that I added text where the perception of Michael the Brave as an unifier is debunked. I really think that your response was overly harsh, because It was only a innocent mistake. Greetings. (Umumu (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Magyarization article[edit]

Can you please give me a more detailed explanatiin about the reasons of your revert on the artcile Magyarization? Because I don't understand what I did wrong

All the inane gibberish is from Britannica, United Roumania, By Charles Upson Clark and Racial problems in Hungary, by Robert William Seton-Watson and Ethnic Minorities from Romania in Documents from the Nations’ Society (1923-1932) (Umumu (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]


clumps of unattributed text - all the text is presented in the exact form the sources, I did not change anything. I am really sorry you reverted that and I want to understand what I did wrong (Umumu (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]


I don't understand what you want to say. Sorry... (Umumu (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Serbs in Romania[edit]

Salut, sper ca nu te deranjez daca vorbesc in Romana? Am citit despre Sarbi si am ajuns si aici, daca poti sa te uiti aici te rog. Zice multe fara referinte, si sincer imi vine greu sa cred ca Sarbi au facut vreodata populatia majoritara in Timisoara. Multumesc. iadrian (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mersi pentru raspuns. Stiu ca Romani nu erau majoritari in Timisoara in anumite periode doar nu am auzit(vazut prin documentatie) niciodata ca Sarbi erau majoritari. Prin Timisoara Unguri si Germani in afara de Romani erau majoritari, dar de alta natiune nu stiu daca ar fii. Multumesc. Nui nici o graba, doar ca am dat peste asta si sunt putin curios pentru ca nu exista nici o data pentru faptul asta si stiu destul de bine istoria Sarbilor. iadrian (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Romania in the Early Middle Ages[edit]

I read your comments, but everything that I asked to be done was done even though the sourcing was not what it seemed. If you can add the sourcing for the information you need and can get it up to FA, do it. As far as this being delisted from GA, that is not my call. Another user will have to do this. I understand your concerns, but the GA has already been made. Chris (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madgearu quote[edit]

2008 edition ISBN is right; the original is available at MNIRCristianChirita (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've bought the book two week ago, from Romanian National Hystory Museum, stil the date is 2008 ISBN 978-973-8966-70-3 and then another cod 355(398)"0275/0376" 2008 Editor Dan iulian Margarit Claudiu Stan, my edition has 139 pages (140 if you consider that one is blank http://www.cetateadescaun.ro/uploads/products_files/jjoRoh7k9I.pdf), and starting from page 116 is an abstract in english.So the quote was an exact transliteration and not a translation.CristianChirita (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hunyadi[edit]

Thanks for the message. I am not very active on wikipedia these days, being quite busy in the real world and all. Concerning John Hunyadi, the whole debate is sickening. The man was a noble-man of the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary, a Catholic knight and a crusader and it is highly unlikely that he would have even be able to grasp the concept of ethnicity as we use it today. However, for all that's worth all contemporary sources as well later ones (XVIth century) explicitly designate him as Vallachian. The contested reference (see talk page) to Pope Pius II (it's from the Cosmographia) is perfectly valid and beyond all ambiguity, the man describes the Vallachians, their language he is perfectly aware of whome the Vallachians are and explicitly identifies Hunyadi as one of them. Nicholas Olahus' patent of nobilty dated to 1541 contains a laudatio of his latin Vallachian origins and quotes both John and Mathia Hunyadi among his ancestors. Every notable medievalist, Hungarian, Romanian or what have you, relates the Hunyadis to Vallachia (speculating on the more distant origins of the family is something else!). As far as I stand undue weight is still given to other theories, Lendvai and Molnar are quoted abusively as I've already stated(they do not say what the article has them say), and the Corvinus Library source is fringe. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Viaţa Basarabiei[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)[edit]

The April 2010 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) 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Caesar, moriturus te saluto![edit]

(A fine new article, by the way.) Do drop in at the other place so I can talk without fear of reprisal. - Biruitorul Talk 02:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My head is still spinning from the latest developments, and I myself am quite dezumflat for now. You are totally right, and I will comment on your post there later today. I'm just leaving this note here so I don't have to sign in there for now - there's plenty other stuff waiting to jump out at me there -, but also so you don't think I'm ignoring you (after all, I was the one to pester you for a reply). Sursum corda. Dahn (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a new low in that unpleasant cycle of AfDs (let's show two guys shaking hands to prove our case!), but then I saw this! "Here's a group of random people having lunch - that's our new ticket." Not to mention the abuse of the fair use exception. - Biruitorul Talk 21:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Luca Caragiale[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alexandru Robot[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK[edit]

I approved your DYK for Emil Isac. Joe Chill (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Emil Isac[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Special request[edit]

Dahn, Pohta ce-am pohtit/Pcap suggested you might take an interest in writing an article on an event in modern Romanian history. In 1982, Ceausescu purged about 350 members of the government, including a cabinet member, who practiced Transcendental Meditation. He sent them to work as unskilled laborers, perhaps in imitation of Mao's Cultural Revolution. Here's an article from five years ago: "Revolutia culturala" - Afacerea "Meditatia transcendentala" Pcap says there's an entire book about it. I've come across a meager few articles in English, but I can contribute those and writing effort. Or, if you want, I could start the article with those sources, and you could correct it and fill in details from any Romanian language sources. Interested?   Will Beback  talk  09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This could be devoted to this one issue, in which case it might be only 500 words or so. Or an more complete article might cover all of "The Small Cultural Revolution" ("Mica revoluţie culturală"), with this event as just one small episode. I guess that would depend partly on what sources are available.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super! There's no rush at all. Put it at the bottom of your agenda, if you like. Transcendental Meditation affair (Romania) is on the right track. 1982 Romanian Transcendental Meditation purge? But whatever the title the focus on this particular event sounds logical. It'd be at an intersection of both Romanian history and the TM movement, plus connected to the biographies of involved parties.
I suggest that we see what we can find in sources first. From my experience, once the sources are at hand it's easy to write the article. Why don't we set up a sources page, I can copy in the meager sources I can contribute, and if you can find more that'd add to the soup. Whenever we have time to start drafting will be soon enough.   Will Beback  talk  10:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I found several mentions in miscellaneous pubs archived by Google, including one that calls it a "notorious scandal". I've got a good library system for books in English, and access to some with journals. I'll check with those. Let's work at User talk:Will Beback/TM-R for the time being.   Will Beback  talk  11:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for D. Iacobescu[edit]

Hi! I have reviewed your DYK nomination for D. Iacobescu, and identified several problems. Please visit the nomination discussion for a full explanation, and if you feel you have addressed my concerns feel free to leave a message on my talk page inviting me to reassess the nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have replied to your rebuttal (still not approved). It's not personal, it's just my understanding of the DYK rules. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read your message on my talk page and interpreted it as "Thank you for taking the time to review my DYK nomination, which until you visited it had languished in the queue for two weeks. I disagree with your opinion but nevertheless I appreciate the time you have spent arriving at it." With that in mind, I don't intend to revisit this nomination. My opinion stands and you're welcome to try and convince another editor to disagree with it. Congratulations on a good article, whether or not you manage to surmount the technicalities of DYK. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, if you'd just spend as much time improving the article or the hook as you've spent improving your argument at DYK, the nomination would probably be approved by now. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reviewing articles at DYK is on a volunteer basis. When I spend my time to review a nomination, you're certainly not obliged to agree with me, but it would be polite to acknowledge that I don't owe you anything, avoid words like "absurd" in replying to me, and acknowledge that I am doing my best to help you create a hook that meets the community-agreed DYK rules, which state the hook must include a definite fact that "must be mentioned in the article" - not "must be able to be extrapolated from the article". I think we can both agree that building good articles is more productive than arguing on DYK, so next time you get a hook knocked back can I suggest you just go make a better article? You get the same result at the end of the day as you will from arguing the point, you don't end up offending people who are just trying to help you get your hook featured, and the article ends up clearer, more detailed, or more readable. Materialscientist has okayed your hook now - which I don't agree with, but I don't have to - so take this all as lessons learned for next time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read WP:OR: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If a source says he went to high school, and another source says he died at age 19, it is an impermissible synthesis to say "he died shortly after going to high school" unless you can find a source that explicitly states that. (For example, he might have been a child prodigy who finished high school at age 15.) If you think WP:OR means something different, that's great, but take it up at the WP:OR talk page; don't give me grief for a literal application of community-agreed policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for D. Iacobescu[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

No worries, and apologies for seeming to be bandwagoning. I try not to get involved in disputes, or at least to be as neutral as possible when I'm pulled into them. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)[edit]

The May 2010 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) 20:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UH[edit]

Uh, would you mind not editing a prep while I'm right smack in the middle of adding stuff? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No hope. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK[edit]

Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement, and dates. I was pushing it with linking Paris and only did so because the other, more obscure place-names are linked and it would look odd to have a single unlinked place; France and German language certainly come under overlinking by any definition. – iridescent 23:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundoianu[edit]

Tricky it is. I think in his case both the Romanian (pen-)name and its French version need to be IPA-ed, but I would need your help to decide which, among the many variations and combinations, should be presented as being the main variants. Here is what I understood by simply browsing the article and a few of its sources, and I'm asking you to check if I got it right:

  • Romanian name: Benjamin Fundoianu, with Benjamin pronounced à la Romanian: [benʒaˈmin fundoˈjanu]. Or is it just B. Fundoianu, or Barbu Fundoianu?
  • French name: Benjamin Fondane. This, I expect, should be given with the French pronunciation: [bɛ̃ʒamɛ̃ fɔ̃dan].

In both cases we should probably choose the names as they most often appeared on his book covers and in writings about him.

The first sentence in the lead will need rephrasing to make room for the IPA's and to give it a logical and readable shape. — AdiJapan 09:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my attempt: Benjamin Fondane. I preferred the version without IPA for Barbu, because it would just amplify the already messy lead, without really giving any useful information. But if you want to add it, you can copy+paste the code for this: [ˈbarbu] (see what I mean?). — AdiJapan 13:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scibor Rylski[edit]

Excellent work on Scibor Rylski! Im really grateful for Your kind help with the article! I dont think that I can add anything! I will just check the "red" links if I can find the names of those places or names. Again, I really appreciate! Best regards, Camdan (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings! I manage the links in the references, its all there. Maybe not so easy to find his name in all the sources but its all there. Regarding the notes, its about the paragraph. Most of his life is to be found in one or two books, so that is why there are not so many notes but all this information is in the books. I hope that what I did was ok! Best regards, Camdan (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I understand...I think! :) I added ref in the beginning of the article, basically adding ref 1 and 2 cause its only references I have about his life at the moment. Does it look better?
As for infobox, I checked some of them and some instructions but its to much for me to learn right now since I dont have the time right now. I would love to learn more about it, Im soon going on vacation with my kids and later on I will be able to connect to internet so I will be able to sit on the beach, kids playing and me trying to understand how to do. It seems rather complicated to me, there are lot of examples but its different if You want to create infobox, maybe its to early! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdan (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for me it all look more than well! I checked the sources and they are ok, I also checked his name on the lists.
You have really been of great help! I will try to use this new knowledge when creating or improving new articles, Im working on several others! :)Camdan (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, I felt that your major effort on this article deserved some recognition, so I've added you as co-creator. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got this info message: "A fact from Zbigniew Ścibor-Rylski appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 June 2010". Thank You for adding me as co-creator! Im on my way on editing the article "Clan of Ostoja" which is central article on the clan, still long way to go but during the summertime I will try to make it on GA lvl, i got some good advise about the proceedings from user "Ironholds". If You have time and like the challange...how about making it together to FA lvl in the future!? Im pretty sure that I need lot of help here but I have all the sources and knowledge, I've been studying this subject since 1986 under the guidance of professor Szymanski and Adam Heymowski that as authority on the subject. Take a look on the article, if You feel that its universe between FA lvl then I will just make it to GA...
  • Thanks for Your comments! Yes, Im aware about lack of references in some parts, Im doing the makeover of the article and rewriting, had no time to put those citations but will in the summertime. As for the references they should be fine in most (it include almost all publication in the subject, there is no more to get according to my knowledge that are reliable), I just need to make correction so I did not mix up some. Page sides is another thing, but ok, I will read more instructions regarding how to make the article in proper way, not using "certain comments" and be more neutral. Unfortunately, there is not so many polish to help here cause they dont study the subject enough. The article actually stand on years of research by several people in different areas. I will improve first and then let You know...my biggest problem is lack of time and my poor english...but then You might help me with the english part...I will read Your article to see how its done! Thanks again! :)

Camdan (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sincerely, Camdan (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Benjamin Fondane[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

small request[edit]

do you think you can help me find the requested reference for Tatarbunary Uprising. i just can't shake it!! thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometeu (talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zbigniew Ścibor-Rylski[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fondane Fundoianu.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fondane Fundoianu.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)[edit]



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned[edit]

And I hope you do the same! Meanwhile, many thanks for all your support during my exile. It's nice to be back ahead of schedule. - Biruitorul Talk 01:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)[edit]



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)[edit]



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist election has started![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 21:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)[edit]



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia[edit]

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comeback[edit]

That's great news; a hearty welcome back! Thank you, and once again, best wishes for a great new year. And really, what better way to welcome you back than with a small list of accumulated tasks?

  • Unfortunately, Bigar (actually Bigăr) made DYK; it should be merged with Berzasca. I know you're a fan of Czech villages, so there.
  • Your Piteşti pictures were replaced. Some of the new ones are nice, but you may wish to bring back some of your old ones.
  • I've been waiting for months to undo this edit, but got no support on the talk page. Your thoughts?
  • Scroll down here to see the "undue weight" tag, and wade through the preceding discussion if you feel up to it. Unlike the other three, this one isn't easily solvable, but it's nevertheless frustrating. To the complaint that the article doesn't express "enough" of the point of view of Hungarian historians, I welcomed Hungarian sources, but none were brought in; I suppose tagging is more convenient. As for this, I really can't say much: "Presentation of the second Vienna award is POV ("imposed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy", instead of simply Germany and Italy, or simply second Vienna Award). It suggests that the award was a bad thing, as it was passed by Nazi and Fascist. In reality, the arbitration took place between two allies of two regional powers, upon request of Romania (it being the closest ally)"!
  • Speaking of which, we now have this article, which is odd, considering that Transylvanian Revolution of 1848 remains a redlink.

Well, take your time settling back in, no urgency to any of this (well, maybe a slight urgency here), and see you around. - Biruitorul Talk 20:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, and sorry about the flak you took. We've seen these tactics before, and they're always a disappointment. Some are continually trying to turn this into a place unde trebuie sa sufli în iaurt la orice mişcare, and I for one will not allow them to succeed. Indeed, let me ask you up front: is Mr Creţu an expert on postmodernism in Romania? Does that justify retention of his autobiography? - Biruitorul Talk 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really should slow down this assault of stuff, but your CPSF article leads to another question. Rodica Bretin has submitted her autobiography, as well as an article on her husband, Dan Apostol. Is the couple notable, or should they be headed toward the gladiators' arena?
And anyway, I wonder what's up with the recent spate of autobiographies. Ionuţ Caragea is at last salted. (After getting torched from ro.wiki, he launched into some bizarre theories: "Wikipediştii se tem de mine datorită faptului că mă pricep bine în domeniul editării pe acea enciclopedie. Tocmai de aceea mă şi cenzurează total... Lucrurile sunt mult mai complicate decât par, vorbesc de influenţe politice, marketing, publicitate, să nu credeţi că Wikipedia este o enciclopedie liberă aşa cum se spune. Este o maşinărie de creat imagine şi făcut bani, condusă din umbră de persoane dubioase, fără identitate...") See also the amusing DRV discussion.
Then there's this guy.
But most extreme is this woman: repeatedly uploads her autobiography across five years, and following the second deletion at AfD, rushes to have the decision reversed. Let's hope it isn't, but it's amazing how persistent some of these jokers are. - Biruitorul Talk 06:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry: I remain a patient man. I remember thumbing through Germanofilii some months ago, seeing the chapter on Bogdan-Piteşti, and thinking how very much Dahn would appreciate that book! So I'm glad to see you're putting it to good use. Meanwhile, since I'm sure you could use a good laugh, have a look at this project! An article on every village wasn't enough; now, one of their objectives is "de a separa articolele referitoare la comune, de cele referitoare la satul reședință". I love their manifesto too:
  • "O comună nu este o localitate (și deci, nu se poate reprezenta pe o hartă ca și un punct, ci doar ca și suprafață)." Really? So we have maps showing Tokyo and Mexico City and Shanghai as dots, but Perieţi, Ialomiţa can't be?
  • "O comună nu are cod poștal (coduri poștale au doar localitățile)." And?
  • "O comună nu are atestare documentară (în 1332 nu existau comune)." So we can't mention village attestation dates in commune articles?
  • "Trebuie să evităm confuziile sat-reședință/comună." This sounds like a problem in search of a solution.
  • "Populația unei comune se calculează însumând populația tuturor satelor componente." And?
  • "O comună nu are coordonate geografice." Again, if the world's largest cities have them, I'm sure communes do too.
Here, we now have Template:Beceni, Buzău and Cărpiniștea, Buzău. Check the author on both of them, and note how the village is placed in Category:Communes in Buzău County, which is, well, wrong.
Celts in Transylvania and Bronze Age in Romania: hmm. - Biruitorul Talk 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, wasn't 1940 Vrancea earthquake supposed to be at 1940 Bucharest earthquake? Though now I notice the move to 1977 Vrancea earthquake. Also note: Romania Anti-Religious Campaign. Well, not quite on the level of Prehistory of Transylvania! - Biruitorul Talk 05:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that way, but one by one they go down... One hopes a previously-unknown League suffers the same fate. - Biruitorul Talk 23:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Enough[edit]

I agree. Too much conflict. But please don't make threats since I have plenty of evidence against you as well, which I won't mention and use. I hope you accept a peaceful collaboration. I invited you to this collaboration in good faith from the beginning. I don't support any fringe theories. From my posts you should have seen that. Please do not put things on me which are unfair or untrue. I simply believe in inclusionism and I believe all notable hoaxes should be here. There are plenty of hoaxes unrelated to Dacia on this site and no one has an issue. I also try to keep an open mind and keep a balance. I understand the desire to kill all Dacomans and protochronists, but I think this effort has crossed the line to the other extreme and is the wrong way to do it. The actions of this police are breaking many Wikipedia policies, from uncivility, to harassment, war edits and almost vandalism, abusing and misunderstanding the WP:NOT#DEM. This is not what sensible Wikipedians should do. Your attitude might create more Dacomans than you can kill. Because control and imposing views by force, aka Dictatorship and Inquisition, never work. Never. You have to lead by example and teach others in order to win them on your side. Yes, I now, it requires more work than pointing fingers or deleting content, but I believe is the only way to the success you want. I suggest you keep an open mind and heart, stay positive, be wise, try to keep and look at a glass half full than half empty. This is what I am trying to do. I hope we can collaborate.--Codrin.B (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia scope clarifications and disclaimer[edit]

Hello! Given the potential for conflict and suspicions raised by the WikiProject Dacia , I added an important notice for scope clarifications and disclaimer in the intro section. If interested and willing, please review and provide any feedaback and suggestions you may have. Thank a lot! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia[edit]

Hi Dahn. I questioned Codrinb's leadership of WikiProject Dacia based on his lack of neutrality and his Protochronistic Dacian-biased tendencies. See the ongoing dispute here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pseudo-historical_Protochronistic_and_Dacomanic_tendencies_of_the_Wiki-project_Dacia

Andrei (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do you happen to know a neutral user with a genuine and un-biased passion for the Ancient History of Dacia to take Codrin's place?

Andrei (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that. I guess it would be better to simply ignore Codrin and his wiki-project from now on. In any case it won't be long until he'll start having plenty more problems with other users because of his Dacomania and addiction to Protochronism.

Andrei (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, your English is much better than mine and maybe you can help me at least to isolate Codrin's Dacomanic beliefs and keep the Dacia wiki-project neutral. Now, Roninbk told me that there are no administrators for wiki-projects and as such I can't go on with my campaign to have Codrinb replaced by someone else. I don't know what to think of what Corvus cornix just said on the noticeboard.

I totally agree with you and Daizus that the best way would be to mark the Daci as Uncertain on my map but I had to make use of the surrounding debate to uncover Codrin's Protochronistic tendencies. For a while I thought Daizus was backing Codrin's beliefs and I had to continue the dispute with him as well. However I only managed to completely discredit myself in his eyes and this was unfortunate.

Now, the first thing we must do is to change the Neutral Point of View intro from the wiki-project ASAP!

Andrei (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to Codrinb's statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests Do you have any commnets or suggestions regarding what I said to the arbitration committee? Can you please give me a hand with those diffs? I don't know how to make use of them.

I will support you if you want to bring Dacology up for WP:AfD. You can count on me! FutPerf now suggested me not to invest too much energy with the arbitration. He might be right and I think I will follow your advice to build up a strong case against Codrinb and be prepared if this incident will escalate and will involve many more users in the near future.

Andrei (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading the latest statements on the arbitration board as well as Codrin's response. The comparison between Protochronism and Aryan-race theories is splendid and perfectly applicable. I think Codrin is now on a certain collision course towards getting his user account at least temporarily blocked (vorba aia Şi-o face cu mâna lui). To be honest I never had any desire to get into this conflict with Codrin, but I thought it was my duty as a Wikipedian (and Romanian) to uncover and expose the fringe and biased theories he is campaigning for around here. The last drop was when he started accusing me of having an interest and hidden agenda.

Andrei (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Dahn, you have a way with words! I like to see I'm not the only one with a 'hidden agenda' around here. I have to say that while I completely disagree with people favouring Dacology or Protochronism, I think their passion and (usually) genuine nationalism can, in some cases and under certain conditions, be redirected towards less grandomanic and more factual episodes of Romanian history. I, for example enjoy reading books about the Dark and Middle Ages written by the younger generation of Romanian historians, people like Tudor Sălăgean, Marian Ţiplic or Alexandru Madgearu. I just finished Ţiplic's 'Fortificaţiile medievale timpurii din Transilvania (sec. X-XII)'. I like the relaxed and neutral way he is writing about controversial issues such as Daco-Roman Continuity or the multi-ethnic history of Transylvania before the arrival of the Magyars. I wish time would go faster so that all Communist historians would die and make room for the new wave.

I believe we should stop reffering to the Dacians and Romans as our sole ancestors. Afterall, the Romans, strictly speaking, were just the Latin-speaking inhabitants of a small region in Central Itlay (Latium). Of course, there were towns and colonies founded by Rome but most of the peoples gradually conquered, starting with the Italic tribes, simply lost their identity and adopted the language and customs of their Roman masters. The same happened with the Dacians. Unfortunately most people fail to grasp that there were other Barbaric nations which played an important role in the Romanian Ethongenesis: the Goths, Gepids, Avars, Slavs, Pechenegs or Cumans. It wasn't a mere Roman-Dacian and partially Slav dealing.

At the same time I consider that we have to uphold the crucial importance of the Latin-speaking Balkan provinces and of the Christian missionaries in giving us our current Eastern Roman character and neo-Latin language. We would have never come into existence if it weren't for the adoption of Christianity by the Empire and the fierce defence of the Lower Danube region by Late Roman Emperors like Constantine the Great or Iustinian. I think the time has come to offer them a well-deserved place in Romanian history.

I will have to leave you for now because I am entering the examination period on Friday. See you again after February 11.

Andrei (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dahn/Archive_45&oldid=1136196281"