User talk:Dahn/Archive 44

Ion Negoiţescu

You're more than welcome, Sir! I was surprised to see someone noticed them. There will be more! Jhendin (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Subcategories of History of Romania by period

To simplify matters (not to rush anything, but to set aside things that were already clarified or those that could wait longer), I would like to modify my proposal to fit better with your minimalistic approach. I would appreciate your troubleshooting. Feel free to edit/comment within the proposal itself, e.g. add a cat that you think I missed, or comment after an unnecessary cat. Allow me to request (from everybody) that we allow everyone interested time to think about it. Thank you very much for consideration of my proposal. Dc76\^talk 12:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorin Antohi

• Hi, It is evident from the article that Antohi edits an academic journal, but I don't see which magazine he edits in addition. Academic journals are not magazines and I am cleaning up the magazine/journal editor categories. If Antohi edits a magazine, please add that info to the article. If he does not and only edits the mentioned academic journal, you should remove the "Romanian magazine editor" category (of course, you're free to create an "Romanian academic journal editor" subcategory, although that would probably remain a rather small cat). Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see your point and also I wasn't completely clear. The category "journal editors" was a mixture of editors of academic journals and non-academic journals, so I created the category "academic journal editors" and plan to merge "magazine editors" and "journal editors" into something like "magazine and journal editors" with "academic journal editors" as a subcat of that. You're absolutely right that "academic journal" should be a subcategory of "magazines". All I'm trying to accomplish is to make the cats a bit more clear. Academic publishing is rather different from other publishing, as is the function of an editor in these two branches of the publishing industry. Therefore I thought it would be a good idea to separate the two. Hope this makes some sense... --Crusio (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the idea. And you're right, I should keep people like Antohi in their "national" category, awaiting the time that this will be renamed "Romanian magazine and journal editors". I guess I was still too much in the mood of shifting people between the journal and magazine editors categories... :-) Thanks, this has been a helpful discussion. As you may see, I am still rather new to categorizing, so this has helped me get my ideas straightened out! --Crusio (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Njirlu, again

Sorry to bother you with silly stuff, but you might want to help here. It's about our old friend Njirlu, avoiding his 1 month block and doing what he does best. — AdiJapan 14:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding us :)

I ask you again. Please could you tell me what is your age? And be serious about it. Thanks in advance. Mario1987 12:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you may not ask me such questions. Dahn (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad because that would have answered many things for me. Oh well it's your own choice. BTW you said discredit yourself some more with this kind of comments but i see an editor (you) that constantly tries to demean me. Don't say it's not true because whenever we have an arguement you constantly let other editors know that i was blocked for various periods and reasons in an effort to discredit me in their eyes. I would appreciate that you try to keep your comments in an non-ironic tone because who knows maybe we will meet some day and you will see that i'm not an irresponsable or "devil may care" editor but a good one (i think :)). You should know that the other editors didn't have as much problems with the list until you appeared, and this is available for the last x articles i wrote since the day we met. Mario1987 12:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And, as I have said, I see an editor who projects every single problem he has with wikipedia editors on the other, who, after having so many opportunities to familiarize himself with what goes and doesn't go on wikipedia, still understands every thing in terms of personal disputes. This is exhausting, counterproductive, and terribly inane. So when I see that user behaving in that way, I can't help but tell him he would do best to exercise self control and try to focus on the issue at hand, and I will evidence the analogy one can make with other cases where that user got blocked because he showed himself unwilling to exercise self control and review matters lucidly. It's really not my fault that said user insists on pulling out the same canard over and over again, and the least I can do is to remind say user that this is not the way to go whatever point he has in mind. It is not the civil way, it is not the intelligent way, it is not even the practical way. Said user should count his blessings instead of producing more and more harassment that could abruptly end his association with wikipedia. Said user will be well-advised to read WP:GAME.

I have not said that you are irresponsible or "devil may care", but that your edits were. In addition to the many articles on doubtful subjects that you've distributed all around (most of which I haven't even commented on), you have so far manipulated citations and constantly displayed disregard for WP:OR (especially WP:SYNTH) and WP:RS. This was in article you wanted (and even managed to) have show up on the front page, knowing that the verification process could not possibly deal with that, and the only thing that seemed to concern you during all this fiasco was the fact that I uncovered these loopholes and tried to remedy them. And even though we went through the process countless times, you persisted in doing that to the point where it became scandalous. That is manipulative and disruptive, regardless of how good a character you are in real life. In fact, even the fact that you would bring up how you supposedly are in real life as something that should have some relevancy to me is disturbing: it shows that you simply cannot understand the editorial process as anything other than gregarious, an attitude which seems to pollute every bit of info flowing from anybody else toward you.

Your last argument would be ridiculous, were it not infuriating. The articles you mention had/have major problems, from design flaws to manipulative data. Sure, some went unnoticed by other users - but that's because it very often was impossible for them to verify the info and how you had twisted it, or because they weren't looking at the fine print. But let's see if I got this right: is it a problem that you write articles with misleading content, or that I expose this issue? The former variant you don't seem to acknowledge; the latter is vacuous by all accounts. Really, get a grip. Dahn (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that what you wrote in the first paragraph (last line) isn't a threat because that would have a detrimental effect on both of us. Keep in mind that i know some things from where one can find many more information about another. And regarding "my last arguement" you should not rush to conclusions because i never said that i blame you for exposing misleading content that i wrote but i just wanted to say that if there were so many major problems like you say other users would have seen them no? I told you before and i tell you again that i know you have friends that tend to follow your oppinions and i know that i don't have any chances but i'm willing to fight to the last man just like this guy. Mario1987 14:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mario, now really... while you may get away with accusations of cabals and editing against policy, mobtalk about how you can get "certain" info and "hints" that you may use them in a way to damage the real life of another editor is most likely going to get you blocked (and considering your log, maybe even more). If you stop now you may still have a chance (that is if Dahn doesn't pursue it).Anonimu (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's quite rare too see a user going for two four counts of indef block at once. But back to regular business: what's on the agenda for today? Oh yeah: anything else. Goodbye, Mario. Dahn (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kondavid hook

Hi! Dahn,

Sorry, if you feel that I am upset with your DYK observation. Not at all. There is no hard feeling of any kind. I apprecite your valued review comments and further clarifications on the length of hook charachters. It will help me in formulating the right hooks for my future articles. Thanks once again--Nvvchar (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Using "ş" character instead of "ș"

I'm curious why you would call this a random change. It is completely incorrect to use the "ş" character instead of "ș". I was responding to a request from a reader. See Talk:Timişoara#Wow, huge mistake. I really don't see how the Wikipedia can justify using the incorrect character. I would think Romanians would be offended by that, as apparently this reader was. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You've convinced me it is not incorrect. Common usage will always win out over the academics. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess I also moved another article, one that I created: Timișoara Banatul Philharmonic. Now it seems I get an error when I try to move it back. Do I need to use the "undo" option in the History? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

New thread

1. On cities: yes, and I think there's a more general need for quality in articles on cities. Currently I believe only Bucharest, Cluj, Buzău, Piteşti and, yes, Satu Mare have reasonably good articles -- but that leaves out Iaşi (wretched) and so many others. So little time... And thanks for reminding me about that great image database; there's much that can be used there, and I like your pilot version. (Oh, and remember this infamous thread? "Acolo e istoria României, în sate, în biserici, în oamenii de acolo, în dascălii de la sat..." Right, but how much can one say about that?)

2. A couple more notability checks, if I may. Animal X (band) (not to mention Category:Animal X albums). Also, George Vulcanescu, Eugen Ovidiu Chirovici, Constantin Rudnitchi: I think they may be marginally notable, but the spam element at least should be taken out.

3. About Timofte: the problem is that it wasn't just Gardianul; every newspaper seemed more or less to copy the exact words introduced by Cezarika1 (whose "a îndeplinit funcţia de..." phrasing appears in dozens of articles). So hmm.

4. You are speaking with a big Bartolomeu Anania fan :) But yes, you do a good job pointing to some of the ambiguities in the record that led the Church astray. Part of that may have been deliberate, part of it due to ignorance. (Recall the story of the Russian bishop not knowing how many gospels or apostles there were: theological education was not always what it was in the West.) In context, it's not difficult to see how "mântuieşte, Dumnezeule, poporul Tău şi binecuvântează moştenirea Ta" can be understood as a reference to the Romanian people, when in fact it refers to no ethnic group at all. They must have missed Galatians 3:28 ("Nu mai este nici Iudeu, nici Grec; nu mai este nici rob nici slobod; nu mai este nici parte bărbătească, nici parte femeiască, fiindcă toţi sunteţi una în Hristos Isus").

5. Remember this guy? I wouldn't mind having him as a DYK, but it's an article in search of a hook. Suggestions are welcome. We might perhaps mention the connection to his patron - Relu Fenechiu is also DYK-eligible - though it might not be that interesting. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, those last two have made it to DYK so no worries there. But: no! Seriously, no! - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A fuller reply is coming, but first: thoughts? The man is making an effort, but the thing is still a bit ... lacking. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this experiment (and this) I know you'll love. For one, it's called Iaşi County; for another, WP:NOT (though perhaps not quite as absurd as Media in Minot, North Dakota). - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes: the fototecă has significantly expanded! A few samples: here, those killed by Communist thugs (see the "Morţii" section and compare names) become "cei ucişi de bandele fasciste". Those guys all together. Copious material on the 1945 land reform. Nicolae and Elena's Christmas tree. Dej voting and speaking at the '46 elections. General Secretary, (non-Red) Patriarch and King at the Soviet embassy: must have been awkward. The founder. Well, I'm sure there's a lot more in there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks so much, I'll surely follow up on this. Dahn (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone of you knows, to what extent such images can be downloaded in WP? For example, if I were to make a photo with my own camera in the publicly available archives (as opposed to copy online), and I would specify that every time it is used, the source must be clearly specified exactly as is required by this site, can it be uploaded here? Dc76\^talk 15:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the license only works for things already upladed to the Fonoteca - we're dependent on what they put up for public access, and can't determine ourselves what is ineligible for copyright (just because it's in the archives doesn't mean it's not copyrighted, but obviously an uncopyrighted document in the archives can be uploaded as such). In short, they take responsibility for assessing copyrights, so it's best not to circumvent that - by which I mean that. if you do, the images you upload will probably get deleted and you'll get a lot of static from the community for all your good intentions (remember my prophecy that some of the images you uploaded in the past were going to get deleted? it seems this has come to pass). Plus, their understanding with wikipedia seems to be related solely to material that's already on their site, and provided we link to the exact place where the original document may be found online. But, either way, I get the feeling that, at this rate, they will soon provide us with a chance to illustrate just about any concept and put a face on any event or bio directly related to Communist Romania. So better safe than sorry is what I say, and I assure you that I am guided by the same wish to see the articles illustrated - I just dislike this back and forth between poorly planned uploads and mass deletions, and would like to see images uploaded that we can actually preserve. You know: dezvoltare durabilă :). Dahn (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re hello mario

I think you are confusing me with someone else (google translate:Cred ca sunt confuze mine cu altcineva). Mrtvi Nhad (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to. Mrtvi Nhad (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sămănătorul

On November 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sămănătorul, 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.

Bencherlite^Talk 11:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 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) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Dahn, I'm sorry I repeated my edit to Piteşti. I didn't realise you had reverted it. Sorry. :-) Marek.69 ^talk 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, I've left another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Another reply -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

hmm

Hi Dahn, as you are more experienced, who's sockpuppet would be this one? --Eurocopter (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Romanian poetry

One wonders why we only have one stub on Romanian poetry? Himalayan 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Surprise

Dahn, you just said today: (...) he's practically married to Chirtoacă when the other guys are worryingly opening uncontrollable links to Russia and other "unregulated spaces" (...) I haven't expected such words from you. Such words don't come if you don't believe in them. Therefore, I would like to officially and irrevocably withdraw all my past accusations against you of harboring second thoughts about Moldovenism, Stalinism, or whatever else. It is clear to me now that I was rush to jump at conclusions about you from your remarks and actions in specific situations. The only "mistake" you did was that you answer punctually, without presenting the entire range of your thoughts and ideas, as others do. For what it is worth, I offer you my sincere apologies for misjudging you. Not for mistreating you; for mistreating you you can ask for satisfaction. But for misjudging you I owe to recognize that I did misjudge you, and I don't anymore. Dc76\^talk 01:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My surprise was not about your political beliefs (to a large extent I knew them for quite some time), but at the lucidity and exhaustiveness with which you argument. When I first met you I had the (wrong) impression that you look at the surface of things and avoid every (justly or unjustly) controversial issue, that you put formality above truth. Therefore you can understand my pleasant surprise at your openness to discuss so many such issues, and to touch upon the very core of them. I wish I could have read your latest comment on my talk page back when I first met you. I suppose that by whatever reason (including me not spelling them out clearly) you might also have an unclear picture of my views and takes on certain issues. Therefore, if you allow me, I would like to clarify a fraction of them:

I have never been member of any political party, nor did I ever had relatives members of any party. I did not know that many Romanian editors in WP are members of political parties, but their common action (only) around the time of elections speaks of itself. I wasn't a Basescu supporter from the very start. In fact I looked down upon him from the very beginning. His name to me was associated with Petre Roman. The first thing that made me change my mind was when he stripped himself of immunity in 1990s (I forgot in which year it was), but I still wasn't convinced. The thing that persuaded me was his attitude towards the reform of the justice system started by Monica Macovei. And when he as president condemned the communism in December 2006 (including his stoic attitude towards the clownade of Vadim), he got me on board. There are certain aspects that I don't like about him. He has to work on the way he laughs. He steers things up, but after that he is not sufficiently firm when he takes action. But, for 3 years he was vertical with regards to the subject matter of all issues I paid attention to. That, the verticality and stoicism, is why I believe in him. I wasn't able to vote until relatively recently, because of being away and because in diaspora you have to spend a relatively large sum of money from your pocket to travel for vote. Such amounts are quite significant for students. Only once, while in diaspora, I got to vote, but it felt so good. It made my day! I can vouch that what 115,000 Romanians in diaspora felt yesterday was undescribable.

About liberalism. I share the belief in very large economic liberalism. I believe in a potentially strong state that acts swiftly and decisively, but one which acts only when clear rules are broken. The rules must be very permissive and very well fixed to make this possible. About politics, I do believe in collective rights and collective representation, but (and this is a very important but) I believe that the individual has the sovereign right to be or not to be identified with whatever representations s/he choses to. Ideally, the individual must be well-informed, and I reject when non-informed individuals are assigned a choice they personally did not make. For example, I reject when people are called non-Romanians simply because politically assigned census officials forgot to ask them the question and wrote in what those officials wanted. (Being Moldovan and being Romanian are not self-exclusive terms in Moldova.) On the other hand I know very well there is a small constituency (100,000-200,000) that rejects being Romanian as a personal choice, and I respect their choice. However, Moldovenism is something completely different from a choice of being called non-Romanian Moldovan. Moldovenism is a political theory. That Soviet propaganda theory can be rejected without infringing on the rights of the individuals who consider themselves non-Romanian Moldovans.

About unionism. You might note that I never expressed a clear position in WP. The movement that started in the spring of 1988 was anti-Soviet (the inside-USSR aspect of anti-Communism), and had as a central theme national and linguistic renaissance. (BTW, I am not sure what you mean by anti-isolationist.) But it also rejected becoming a non-autonomous part of Romania (anti-Wallachian ideas that Asachi was voicing in 1850s, were and still are very strong; the communists misrepresented such views that were strong also in 1918-1940 as anti Bessarabia being part of the Great(er) Romania) and almost 100% rejected being part of Iliescu's Romania. Things have changed since then in Moldova due to generation shift, and to the fact the the current under 25 crowd feels deeply disenfranchised: they did not have a normal childhood, they grew up in cold, with frequent electricity cuts, they witnessed extreme class disparity between the rich and the poor, they were refused the basic human right of having a family and sometimes even the right to be raised by a parent (800,000 middle age Moldovan citizens are abroad), they saw the domination of illiterate and unprofessional individuals. Unlike the old generation, and not so seldom unlike their parents in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece or Moscow, they consider themselves Romanians. You would understand that I can not elaborate more on the issue (write me an email if you want to), but I was extremely surprised of what I saw among these people in April this year: it's a chasm from my generation, despite only a few years apart. If we make now abstraction of this very large constituency, and also if we make abstraction of the people (of all ages) that seldom express their views (traditional Bessarabian conservatism and suspicion towards everybody), what you are left with in the "unionist camp" (there never was a camp) are a group of very dubious individuals. You remember Leonida Lari, Mircea Druc, and even Ilie Ilascu. They created an industry of being unionist; they would like to hand certificates of unionist, etc. These people not only can be manipulated, but have been manipulated more than once before (Druc e.g. was a traitor in 1972, but of course he wouldn't say that).

I was alarmed myself about the possible associations between unionism and xenophobia, but I realized that this is only plausible for the older generations. In fact, from my personal experience, the average Moldovan (person living in Moldova) is less anti-Semitic than the average Romanian (person living in Romania). Moldovans would be able to tell you many more jokes about Jews, but that's about the degree of their anti-Semitism. They can of course tell such jokes about Oltenians as well.

My personal view is that unionism as it is advertised is useless and unrealistic. But I don't believe in a two state solution for eternity. First, because we don't have a problem to solve; it's an artificial communist construction. I believe union (I don't like the word unionism) could be the answer to a problem that the two countries did not face yet so vividly, but will in the medium and long run: the smaller the country, the fewer things it can do on its own, the less competitive it is. Individual Moldovans have benefited from being part of the Russian and Soviet Empires by studying at more elite schools, by becoming scientists, engineers in areas Moldova would never develop on its own, etc, etc, etc. (Just a trivial non-sense example: in 1991 the were enough Moldovan officers capable of running as many nuclear submarines as France, while Moldova does not even have exit to the sea.) Transylvanians and Bukovinians have in some degree experienced this under the Austrians. I believe that nations which are insufficiently competitive are absolutely naturally doomed to disappear. Romanians don't feel this to such a degree as Moldovans. Moldovans are very well aware of their limits. Europe can overcome some of them, but not even 1/2. I support the union, but for the right, true reasons, not for fake reasons to satisfy some personal ambitions. Better a good union in 50 years than a bad union today.

About Transnistrian issue, it's an issue between Moldova and Ukraine. Bucharest should not be concerned about that. Bucharest too often identified Kiev with Moscow, and at best sees in Kiev only 1-2 fractions. We see 10. The problem to solving the conflict is obviously Moscow, its interest in both Moldova and Ukraine. I would be very interested to exchange with you views and ideas about Russia. It's simply too complex and too much, so let's postpone this for now. But thank you for expressing your interest. Dc76\^talk 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Man, I did not expect us to agree so much: As for his personal touch: for one, he took the initiative in reshaping the EU's energy policy, which the PSD-PNL lobby will not only not do, but will have a transparent financial interest in preventing from happening.

A month ago, I suspected you of ganging up against me. That suspicion is officially over after this: Same for the "what he did to Constanţa" argument, which presumes that esoteric knowledge of facts. This coming from a city run by a gangster who, incidentally, is one of the president's stated opponents (albeit one of the most ridiculous public figures in recent history). So allow me not to trust you on that one, at least not until he won't move to Brazil as promised. :) Man, you are full of pleasant surprises. Dc76\^talk 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Very short: 1) The antisemitic rants of Goma are a very serious issue. I am stunned how blind he has been in this context. Nobody rational denies that there were many Jews that did a lot of bad and dishonest things. But to jump from there to a conclusion, or even vague suggestion that they are somehow culpable as a community is not understandable to me. I come from the same geographic area as Goma, and I can vouch this is not a Bessarabian thing at all. But I wouldn't be so sure this is a recent thing with Goma, I believe he had some antisemitic feelings for quite some time. I only hope he will arrive at his eureka moment about this issue. It's a pity such a honorable Romanian dissident to not be able so far to discern such a question. 2) Elena Udrea does not leave me cold. :) 3) I don't know enough about Patapievici to draw definitive opinions about him. I am using the word "impressions" talking about him, not "opinions". Hopefully one day I would help improve his article, and you could address more details in the talk page at that time. 4) Sorry, I was to busy to continue that discussion. Dc76\^talk 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan Voiculescu

You may want to watch this page, I reverted the last version you've edited after it has been massively rewritten by a new user who removed all references. Pcap ping 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I also created a stub for Sorin Ovidiu Vantu. The FNI & FNA scandals should be covered somehow, but it's tricky to do so WP:NPOV since SOV wasn't convicted for anything in those cases as far as I can tell. Since I haven't lived in Romania in almost a decade, I often didn't follow the Ro news. Pcap ping 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Radu Berceanu

I just tried to edit this page, didn't mean to offend anyone... Being a member of Parliament is not that trivial in my opinion. Thank you. Notasmile (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Creangă and his "Memories"

Hello, Dahn. On ro.wp, I have started to translate your (very good) work on the Childhood Memories by Creangă. I stumbled upon some quotations from Călinescu, Vianu etc. in the "Structure, genre and style" section. Since I don't have quick access to those books, I need some help with retrieving the original Romanian text of those citations (as you know, simply translating back into Romanian won't do). I know you don't like to touch on ro.wp so much, and I understand and respect that, but I would really appreciate your help on this.- Andrei (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that is exactly what I needed. Also, thanks for the other translation tips you provided, they came in handy. You only missed the Constantinescu citations in the "Historical record" section: "clan leader", "enlightened man", "the wisdom and balance of the ripe age", "[David's] common sense is also apparent in the field of religious belief, where, as any good Christian in a Romanian village of the mid 19th century, he takes mass and behaves like a practicing Christian, but does not encourage his wife's bigotry."

About the links in the footnotes, I hope I'll be able to get them fixed. Their source is the citation template that I like to use for a more "even" citation style so I think I'll tinker with that a little.- Andrei (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, it seems that the Constantinescu citations are in French in the original work, so I could just try to translate them, right?- Andrei (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just finished the translation. If you would like to give it a read and a few copyedit, you're welcome to do so.- Andrei (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Głos

No time right now, so I'll be brief: there were at least three papers sharing that name, it all depends on the timeframe. I'll rework the article on Głos to show which is which later today. Just let me know which period are you interested in: 1886-1905, 1977-1991 or the modern rightist-conservative weekly. //Halibutt 14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: Głos (1886-1905). Hope that helps somehow. //Halibutt 22:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Another stone to your garden, as we say here in Poland: chłopomania. It's mentioned briefly in your article, so I linked it from within the article. It's but a sub-stub, but at least gives you something to google for. Let me know should you need something more. //Halibutt 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that is truly an amazing work, thank you. You already wrote pretty much everything there was to add on sociological and historical aspects of the movement/notion/phenomenon/whatever you call it. Not much work left for me. After the Christmas I'll try to add some more specific examples from literature, visual arts and social life like Lucjan Rydel marrying a simple peasant girl or Kazimierz Przerwa-Tetmajer "discovering" the Tatra Mountains and its' people (believe it or not until late 19th century people from Cracow didn't know the mountains were there even though on a sunny day you can see the mountains from the city's church towers).

And Merry Christmas-crăciun fericit-wesołych świąt to you, mate :) //Halibutt 11:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi Dahn, In reference to naming of Twin towns, Sister cities (or both?). I thought you may like to add you opinion on this discussion. Your comments would be very much appreciated.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 02:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 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) 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend, and a productive 2010. Hope to see your great articles also in new year. - Darwinek (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The situation

Dahn, don't you know it may be detrimental to your health to speak with Enemies of the State? Nevertheless, thank you for your words of support, and let's hope I'm free from this silly cage soon enough. If you look at who else was covered by that ruling aside from me, you'll wonder what they were thinking: Piotrus on a 3-month ban followed by a 1-year topic ban, and good guys like Dc76, Martintg, Miacek, Radeksz, Vecrumba, and Tymek in the same boat as I am. And don't worry, I'm sure I'll bounce right back with some nice material. I may e-mail you some further reflections in the coming days, but meanwhile, Merry Christmas and keep up the great work. I know you'll hold down the fort. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorule, if you and Dahn allow me to chime in, you wouldn't be "in the box" today if you didn't frame the issues as "good guys" vs. "enemies". Editors here agree on some issues and disagree on others, e.g. I agreed with you and Dc76 on Communist Romania (re)naming, but we disagreed on others, e.g. mentioning the Basescu film incident. Anonimu has learned something from his ban; at least he didn't edit war with me when I added the news about the 5K euros movie with Geona to his bio. I agreed with Mikkalai (sp?) on a graph article a while back against some guy pushing his own papers there; although I've not interacted with Mikkalai on other topics, based on my perusal of the archives at WT:ROMANIA, I'm sure I'd disagree with him on some stuff. I guess it helps if you edit various topics so you're not disagreeing with the same editors all the time. ArbCom has become more intransigent lately, in part because the electors asked/voted in arbitrators willing to dish out more severe sanctions. User:Ottava Rima has about the same number of edits as you, plus way more accolades, and that didn't sway them. Bans can be appealed too, and topic bans are easier to do so because you can keep editing, and it helps if you can show you're here to "build the 'pedia". I hope you have other hobbies besides Romanian history/geography/politics. Pcap ping 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's anything in the comment above that addresses my behavior, feel free to open another thread here and I'll take it into consideration. That I would have considered part of it is addressed to me is owed to the ambiguous (on purpose?) "yous" and so on. The dramatic "self-fulfilling prophecy" about how I chose to identify myself with Biruitorul, which you stated elsewhere, is most likely a senior moment. In any case, if you are here to lecture Biruitorul on what he should and should not have done and on how he should be discussing the issue with me, I must discourage you from continuing this thread. The one post, whoever you addressed it to, is already needless. Dahn (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Pcap, just one point. I said the users in question are good guys. I did not label anyone an enemy, or complain no one from the "other side" received restrictions, or anything like that. And, objectively speaking, most or all of those I mentioned are good guys in the sense that they contribute content, are civil, are not disruptive (certainly not of the mainspace), etc. When someone with a Wikipedia career spanning 5 years, 8 months and 12 days, an administrator for most of that time, and the author of 17 FAs, 11 GAs and 300 DYKs is given a 3-month ban and 12-month topic ban by people who've contributed far less, it does at least raise eyebrows. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And, before we're too far into this year, let me wish you a very happy new year in return. Meanwhile, can I dragoon you into this rather desultory discussion? Given that you have several more reverts to make (and it shall have to be you, because of the, er, situation), and given that the man seems impervious to my logic, perhaps yours shall prove more persuasive. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point about The Irish Filmography

I have modified the DYK hook to address your concerns. Thanks for the input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

You too Dahn. Hopefully Kotniski will be free to do those Romanian communes soon. If not, then I'll guess I'll have to go through them the hard way.... Is our Italian plumber friend back yet?. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I join Dr. Blofeld in wishing you a happy new year. I hope it will bring us (the wikipedians-interested-in-Romania community) more encyclopaedia-building and less personal confrontations.Anonimu (talk)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 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) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK Chłopomania

On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chłopomania, 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) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

sketch of Alexandru Bogdan-Piteşti

I've found a sketch of Alexandru Bogdan-Piteşti in this book: http://www.nmp.ro/Up/files/Image/Publishing/MiscareaArtisticaRo/MiscareaArtisticaRo.pdf and I uploaded it here: File:Correggio, Alexandru Bogdan-Piteşti.jpg.

Apparently it's an anonymous work: it's signed "Correggio" and I can't find any reference of a Romanian painter going by that name. bogdan (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Romanian SD women's org

Hi. I created the stub Working Women's Union. Do know know what happened to this organisation after the merger of PMR? Which was the 'official' women's org in Romania during the socialist period? --Soman (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Dahn! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Huguette Bouchardeau - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Pierre Juquin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Portrait at consul

Hi! I saw: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consul_(representative)&diff=313205233&oldid=312374120

You said: "what on earth is the purpose of this portrait in this article? "this is what consuls look like"? ridiculous!"

President of the United States includes photographs of various U.S. presidents, not just the current one. "this is what presidents look like"? I do not find the inclusion of the photograph to be "ridiculous" WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 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) 03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gheorghe Tătărescu GA sweeps review

The article Gheorghe Tătărescu, to which you seem to be the main contributor, is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted.

The main problem is that most of the links are dead, and it mostly seems to be connected to the site itcnet.ro. There are also some minor issues with formatting of references, but this is the main thing. I hope you can take a look at this and address it, because it's essentially a good article, and I would hate to have to delist it. Lampman (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

On Ion G Duca you delete my facts. Why? Stop doing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.90.243 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 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) 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My profile

1. Can you detail please this affirmation? "long string of insults and your explicit aggressiveness" 2. I will delete my profile page if you find its content insulting. (Iaaasi (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

Nah, I won't: it would be like explaining common sense and reason, a pointless and thankless service which you should have already provided for yourself - either that or it's hopeless. If that's what you consider "presenting reality" to be, it most likely is hopeless - whether or not you are a sockpuppet, such attitudes and the various edits resulting from them already show that you are not here to contribute anything constructive.

But tell you what: as much as I hate those irksome procedures, I'll give some more thought to taking you and your edit history through WP:AN/I and checkuser, if nobody else plans to. Dahn (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Give me a single example of non-constructive edit that I made(Iaaasi (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

That's it, tempt me. See where that gets you. Dahn (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Cu exceptia chestiilor pe care le-am pus pe pagina de profil, spune-mi ce am facut gresit(Iaaasi (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

Spaces are in DYK preps

are introduced inadvertently by (some of) our personal computers. Thanks for fixing them in prep1. We'll hopefully fix that at the bot level. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, some extraneous spaces crash the bot issuing DYK credits, and we were looking for their cause these days. Thus your prep1 edit and its summary were very helpful. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You've hit the spot with your last comment - promoting DYK hook to the main page involves dozens of mechanical operations; errors are missed at that stage and new ones are introduced, even by "most experienced" editors. I know for myself that I'm blind to my errors and see them while watching someone. Your help is always welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lady of the Lake?

dahn, he's kinda cute but kind of mean. i liked him once. he's a wiki-addict, i don't like wiki-addicts

Is this perchance the voice of a lost love, of a passing encounter, or of a sworn enemy? Alas, the suggestion that I was once liked by 76.208.179.69 for being cute is, alas, of no use in clarifying this mystery: everybody finds me cute, all people like me. But what is it that I have done to lose this affection I so deserved? Is it what they say, that one always "loves less", and is this what is meant by me being "mean"? 76.208.179.69, 'tis better to have love and lost: say it and lose no more sleep over it. Dahn (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to explain some day. Till then bye, this world can be very dangerous. I wanted to take it kind of easy taking in the sun somewhere. But---it's difficult to type something most wouldn't believe. Bye, the explanation is not contained in a 1988 science textbook. 76.238.153.205 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. It's a cookbook. O_o Dahn (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian communes

Hi. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kotbot 5 is wating approval, then Kot can begin the task. Sound good? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 12:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Up to you. Just that you support it and think it is a much needed task won't harm... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 13:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

?

1. Why did u delete my comment? It was a constructive one...
2. I was accused, based only on the ortographic similarity between the usernames "iaaasi" and "Iasi" that my account is a sockpuppet of User:Iasi

• False, because i have many id-s wih this name; one example: the youtube acoount http://www.youtube.com/user/iaaasi, created in 2007
  

My ip is from Craiova, not from Iasi(79.117.135.104 (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

I deleted it because you are evading your block. In case you have objections with your block, go through the channels; until such a moment as your block is reversed, if ever, everything edit of yours is revertible on sight, and your repeated admission that you are evading the block makes it easier on those who may think that blocking your IP is also in order. Dahn (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

the info about protestantism were referenced (79.117.135.104 (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

what pov? all the data are from a book of a neutral author, not i invented them(79.117.135.104 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC).

last time when I was blocked, even my alleged edit-war enemy recognized that my edits were made in good faith, and I wasn't unblocked (79.117.135.104 (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

I believe you misunderstand the process. Also, you are wasting your power of conviction on me, if that's what this is supposed to be: I have no power to un/block you either way, I only answered your post above to let you know that evading a block may inspire admins to block your IP. Now please, I can't spend a full day on circular debates. Dahn (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to answer me what was wrong with my edit, because all the data were referenced... I thought the edits are judged after their content, not after their author. An you said i am "almost cerntainly" Bonaparte. I proved you that you were wrong(79.117.135.104 (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

You commanded my block, so if I convince you, you could tell Bogdangiusca to unblock me(79.117.135.104 (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Again, I think you misunderstand the process. If you have a grievance, take it up through the channels - appeal the block; if you continue to evade the block, expect that you may find yourself without any means of commenting on your block (this is a usual outcome of such interactions). Dahn (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Then, why didn't you respect the process? You sent a private message to your friend Bogdangiusca instead of posting a message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/ (79.117.135.104 (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

a) It was not under any definition a "private" message, reason why you were able to read it yourself. b) Admins are admins precisely so they take and quickly enforce such decisions on the basis of available data. De jure. c) I do believe I have explained in my messages why I chose to open that thread there, and doing that is as valid as anything. The AN/I process is equally good, but it's somewhat more irksome, and the scandalous portion of your edits was enough so that 70% of admins would have made the same call, wherever the complaint posted. d) With the off-topic accusations, you're only making it harder on yourself, just in case you're seriously considering some review of your block. Dahn (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The only correct reason from your motivation was my inappropriate profile pg (which was made when I was angry on Sq Rackey and was kept for a single day), the rest of your argumesnts are false: I did not make disruptive edits and I am not User:iasi

Take that theory through the process, if that's how you feel about it, and hope an admin unblocks you. There is absolutely no reason for you to: a) evade your block by performing edits in articles; b) post comments here. Have a good day. Dahn (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sa ai parte de o zi si o saptamana atat de buna pe cata dreptate ai avut cand ai spus ca merit sa fiu blocat ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.135.104 (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mersi. Dahn (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Szekely

Tell my pls what is wrong with that edits? I copied word by word from google books

Do u speak serious? u think I parroted your name? ddaannn is my usual id: look here http://www.hattrick.org/Club/Manager/?userId=9677025&browseIds=(Ddaann2 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Gheorghe Doja

This is what is in the article about the Gheorghe Doja name variant, should be anything added or subtracted from this section? "Many cities in Romania have a Gheorghe Doja street, as his revolutionary image and Transylvanian background have been heavily used during the country's pre- Ceauşescu communist regime. The Hungarian national component of the movement led by him was de-emphasized, while it's strong antifeudal character was highlighted." In other words, how would you formulate tha same section, possibly from info from the same source sferapoliticii. Hobartimus (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Iancu de Hunedoara

Salut, Poti sa intri pe articol sa incerci sa rezolvi problema, idea este ca au intrat unii dupa ce discutia sa incheat si fac schimbari cum le palce :) si pe orce loc incearca sa disputa origina Romana. Te rog daca poti sa intri pentru ca am vazut ca tu te-ai ocupat si la discutie si banuiesc ca ai si surse. Mersi multiadrian (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oneinthemillions

You should take this editor to WP:SPI. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you manage to do the above in the end? I note your ANI thread about the subject hasn't moved yet. Let me know if you need a hand :) SGGH ^ping! 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)