User talk:Dahn/Archive 2

Book Vlahuria Tara din vis
Someone sent me this link Vlahuria - Tara din vis where a book published by one Ion Vulpe and titled 'Vlahuria Tara din vis' is mentioned. Have you got this book? Just curious. As for the urge of the Greek patriots to delete the category 'Principality of Pindus' what shall we do? Can you point to a specific page where we can fill a complaint or something? Come over to my talk if you lack the space here Apostolos Margaritis 10:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danac!

It's me again. 'Hiu mini iarǎ' (as the Pindeni Vlachs would say) or 'Escu iarâ io' (as the Farseroti or Gramusteni Vlachs would say). The Pindeni have both ǎ and â while the Gramusteni have only â. Anyway...to get back to the point. I totally agree with Ion Vulpe when he writes that:

“Cititorul român, nu doar pasionat de istorie, si istoricul de profesie trebuie sa cunoasca ADEVaRUL. Cine au fost stramosii sai, ai celorlalte populatii din Româniile Orientale, astfel sa aprobe sau sa se impotriveasca lucid unor decizii eronate ale Politicului, in contradictie flagranta cu realitatea istorica, dar si cu apararea intereselor nationale românesti. Adica sa nu mai fie folosit doar la masina de vot, pentru a asigura Puterea celor care nu merita si care nu ii vor da seama vreodata”, spune Ion Vulpe in lucrarea lui. Sintem intru totul de acord cu domnia sa, cind recomanda “nu tirirea in genunchi, nu tirirea spre o Inalta Poarta este solutia demna, ci reintrarea in Europa.

I don't think the quote above qualifies as 'extremist' in any way though the paper that hosts the article is a bit dodgy to say the least. BTW I am of liberal persuasion and vote(d) Lib-Dem for the Parliamnet (and Ken Livingstone though he now makes a hole in our purses) Apostolos Margaritis 18:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

New nationalist bastard
Salutare,

I've just stumbled accross a new user on editing on Romania related things, mainly in the history section. He is a little bit brutal with some articles, and has yet failed to make a decent comment, but I also found some quite OK edits, so I couldn't make an ideea about him. Could you look a little bit at the article Romania in the Dark Ages where he made some quite substantial edits? For me it looks quite reasonably, but I can't verify the accuracy. Thx. Mihai -talk 14:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Salutare,


 * Seems that my feeling was right. I've blocked him for cursing at you on the Talk:Romania in the Dark Ages page for 24 h. If you want you can delete his last edits there. Also I've tried to clean up some of his contributions, but igf you have sume time to check the ones I've left unreverted I would be grateful. If you see him stepping over the line again, or sockpupetting tell me asap. Btw, you're on the black list on his userpage ;). ThxMihai -talk 10:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Aromanians
Hi!i saw that u made some edits in Trikala and Principality of Pindus articles,saying that Trikala was the legislative capital of the principality.have u got any references for that?i have removed these edits,cause as far as i know,Grevena was.--Hectorian 18:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that i am sure that Trikala never served as a capital of any form for the Principality of Pindus.In Alkiviadis Diamandi di Samarina it is stated that it was never really a capital,but if i understood right,as a form of wannabe or proposed,but in no case active.so,i removed it from the Trikala article,but i am not gonna make further changes in other articles at the moment,cause i am not aware of the status and structure of that (never active) state.If u know something more,do it pls,but not in the Trikala article,cause i am sure it had nothing to do with that state(Trikala is not on the Pindus Mountains,and it most probably was not even included in the principality,although its boundaries were never defined).Regards--Hectorian 19:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

'Murdered' ? - 'Assassinated' ?
Hello,
 * I noticed that you edited the Category 'Murdered politicians' from the 'Marien Ngouabi' Article. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and have only recently been focusing on the Category insertions. I believe the two Categories should be merged into one, and I've left this suggestion on both of the Categories Discussion Pages. In the meantime, how do you think I should proceed?


 * Be healthy,
 * Michael David 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,


 * I’m still learning. I guess once a politician, always a politician (and that’s another issue altogether). In common usage, the term, or occupational category, of ‘politician’ covers everything from Dogcatcher to President (there’s another issue best left alone). And, once a person leaves office they are still commonly regarded a ‘politician’. And the term ‘assassinated' is most commonly used to refer to their death if it is under violent circumstances. I don’t want to make this sound like an issue of apocalyptic proportions. My only concern is: if we proceed with using only the ‘Assassinated politicians’ Category from now on, since this is a sub of ‘Murdered’, will those already listed in the ‘Murdered’ category be left out of the master list. I’m struggling to make sense here, please bear with me. The mechanics of Wikipedia are still somewhat foreign to me. Bottom line: I think we ought to abandon the ‘Murdered politicians’ Category altogether in favor of ‘Assassinated' regardless of the circumstances of their death or whether or not they were still in office.


 * Be Healthy’


 * Michael David 23:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * Yes, lets put the Category issue to a vote and see what the Wiki community thinks about it. How do we go about doing this? I’m going to be away from the computer until tomorrow. I’ll pick up your response then. Thanks for your help and interest.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 01:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
For your comments here: Romanian Wikipedians' notice board Have a nice Sunday (what it is left of it). --Vlad|-> 12:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Do you ever sleep? When I look to your contributions: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Dahn&dbname=enwiki_p I see you contribute 24 hours a day! :) Oh, you've just woken up: according to the weekly graph, you take a nap of a couple of minutes Sunday night!... And I thought I was addicted... --Vlad|-> 13:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Which articles
do you mean? (I will have extremely limited time during the next couple of weeks.) --KIDB 09:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Margaritis calling
Answer to your March the 19th lines

Transylvania pictures
Salut. Pot sa stiu dece ai modificat imaginile de pe pagina cu Transylvania? Cand cineva intra pe o pagina fii sigur ca nu o mearga pana jos ca sa vada fotografiile. Ne trebuie poze si in context, nu numai la galerie. Vroiam sa iti spun ca le pun inapoi cum au fost. Salutari, NorbertArthur 2 Aprilie 2006


 * Stai putin ca nu am inteles, ce fight intre Romani si Magyari??? Eu nu am facut nimik decat sa le introduc imaginile in text, nu am tinut cont de ce nu stiu ce lupta intre Romani si unguri. Adevarul e ca nu prea cunosc chestia cu copyright, dar var rog eu frumos sa nu le sterge-ti pt am petrecut 2 ore jumate ca sa le uploadez. Nu se poate face ceva ca nu fie deletate. Mersi mult, NorbertArthur 2 Aprilie 2006

re:Russian communists
Good. I think it was an improvement. And Mayakovsky, in my opinion, can probably be seen as an old bolshevik. Yours/ Bronks.

Category:Trotskyist organisations
Why Trotskyist organisations should be under socialist parties rather than communist: because both are clearly socialists, yet many Trotskyist organisations explicitely do NOT call themselves communist, as communist parties often were either under control of the USSR to a greater or lesser extent, or identified with the communist tradition as taught in the USSR. Trotskyist organisations obviously form part of a different tradition, which does have some of its roots in 1917 Russia sure, but has a history that is quite different from "mainstream" communism. To avoid confusion therefore, it is best to put trotskyist organisations directly under socialist parties rather than under communist parties. Does that makes sense?--Martin Wisse 20:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Monarchist parties
Hi, The Monarchist League of Canada and the International Monarchist League are not political parties. Homey 18:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages
Hi! It looks like you're trying to move one or more pages. However, please stop doing that this way - the new name of the page might be good, but Wikipedia has another procedure for moving pages. Look at Help:Renaming (moving) a page: you need to use the move tab, and not cut and paste. Cut and paste moves don't take the edit history with them and thus violate the GDFL copyright terms. Also, in some cases, when the move might be controversial, you might first want to discuss the move on the article's talk page. If a move is not possible because a page with the new name already exists, go to Requested moves. Thanks!--Joann e B 22:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I did not mean to discard your changes. I admit that of your three edits, I only checked the last two and only saw the move. I don't need to have it 'my way', I don't have any opinion about the name of the article at the moment, it's just the copyright issue that comes with moving pages by copy paste. I'd be glad to help you with those moves, if you want any help. Just drop me a note on my talk page. Regards, --Joann e B 22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your arguments for moving made a lot of sense, so I moved it. However, it's always valuable to keep the history, even if there doesn't seem to be much more than just categorisation: it's also very useful to see how long a page has been around and who's been working on it, even if they have been minor contributions. Let me know if there are any other pages you'd like help with. Regards, --Joann e B 13:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro Togliatti
Can i ask you to copyedit, after Nilde Iotti, also the improved article about Palmiro Togliatti? Thanks a lot. Attilios 13:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC).

Dead Politicians
Hello Dahn,


 * Actually the topic didn't stir up much conversation; what you see there is all. I started to convert the existing "Murdered Politicians" to "Assassinated Poilticians" but stopped after a few, wanting to wait for some aggreement. However, as I said, no final decision has been reached so far. I guess we can take this as a 'do whatever you want'. I still believe the Category "Murdered Politicians" should be deleted in favor of "Assassinated", but I'm not yet skilled enough in the mechanics of Wiki to eliminate it. Do you agree, and, if so, can you help.


 * Another alternative: We could list politicians as having been assassinated if they were killed while still in office. If they are killed after they have left office this could be listed as 'Murdered'. In this way we could still maintain both lists. It would also take reviewing the existing Articles to sepatate them into the two lists.


 * Michael David 15:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dahn,


 * Stop the presses! (or whatever else they say when they want to change their mind without sounding stupid). I hope I don’t sound like a candidate for senility, but after reading your last message (especially the part about a person who is a politician who is murdered in prison by an oppressive régime, etc) it occurred to me that, no matter what the circumstances, we are still talking about a person being murdered. Let’s call all cases just what they are: Murder! ‘Politician’ (like ‘writer’ or ‘scientist’) is their occupation; ‘murder’ is how their life was ended. This should simplify things quite a bit. This means moving all of the names into the ‘Murdered Politicians’ category, and doing away with the “Assassinated” Category altogether


 * If you agree with this we can still follow your idea of splitting the work between us in the way you suggested: You can be Assassinated and I can be Murdered – whoops! This wouldn’t leave anyone to do the work. Thoughts?


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dahn,


 * You caught that discrepancy in the division of labor huh – I was of course kidding (nice try anyway don’t you think!?)


 * Seriously though, I think there might be some confusion. Your paragraph talking about the problems the change would present, starting with ‘people who murdered in the absence of law…’ aren’t you referring to the perpetrators (the murderers) while aren’t we talking about categorizing the victims?


 * Or, are you saying that these perpetrators would now be seen as 'murderers' instead of the (more noble?) 'assassins'?


 * Michael David 17:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dahn,


 * I feel it is I who should apologize for not being clearer, and sometimes making light of things when I shouldn’t.


 * Your argument is well made. Placing all of the persons into a ‘Murdered’ Category would make things worse. It would create more problems than it would solve.


 * I would like to take some time to review all that we've said about this issue, and get back to you later today or this evening. I have to be away from my computer for a while and will get in touch with you as soon as I can.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 19:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dahn,


 * Actually, after reviewing all that we both have contributed to the subject, you seem to have a better grasp of what to do than I.


 * I think you should take the lead on this, and I will help in any way I can.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 23:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,

I didn't mean to disappear; I just needed some time to think about the issue and to talk about it with some others.

I may have come up with a simpler solution. What do you think about combining the two Categories: 'Assassinated politicians' and 'Murdered politicians' into one Category called 'Slain politicians'?. This is a neutral term that can be applied in both cases.

Let me know what you think about this.

Be healthy,


 * Michael David 16:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism
Daca vara asta esti prin Bucuresti, ce-ai zice sa ne vedem? Eu cred ca vin prin august in vacanta. :) Dpotop 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Salut
Hello Dan. I've seen a TV show on N24 about the war in Transnistria. I will come back later to tell you my conclusions. I'm really busy now. --Chisinau 11:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

About my edits on Moldova I can say that there is not too much to debate there if you have expected to. Things are very clear, we speak about romanians that lived in a former region of Romania. They are romanians and they speak romanian. I know I simplified things at maximum but so are the things there. They are romanians and they speak romanian. Punctum. --Chisinau 12:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Typo
I see that you have spelt initiated as innitiated - english level 5 ?? --  max rspct  leave a message  22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * i didn't get you. Constantzeanu 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ok bud, first of all i don't know what you mean by "you people" and why you are including me in this category. Secondly, i really don't understand why you have to "feed the troll" on my page? have a nice day.Constantzeanu 22:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You failed to explain everything. There are serious holes in your explination. If I believe so does that make me a Romanian nationalist? I don't think so. Do you see me going on the Romanians page and trying to inflate those numbers. No. I am actually one of those people that is trying to keep calm there. I had a question though, are you Romanian? Constantzeanu 23:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ziua
Hello Dahn. Do you read [www.ziua.ro]? I found there some interesting articles on what you and Dpotop have been debating over the last days. --Moldo 20:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now I found only this one and is not really what I have been searching. Shall search...--Moldo 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Book
Have you consider to write a book or something? --Moldo 19:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please give me your email, I want to bother you :) --Moldo 19:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dan, have you seen that there are so many articles in red? I'm reffering to Nicolae Bălcescu where are at least 20 future articles :) --Moldo 20:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories on the New Force article
About your last edit on New Force: are you incapable of seeing that this one is a subcategory in both?

I'll resist biting the flamebait... may you use a gentler tone, next time, please? Yes, I did not notice it was a subcategory in both. IMHO there is something wrong with this taxonomy, however. There are neofascist organizations that are/were clearly not political parties, so it's questionable to have Category:Italian neofascist organizations as a subcat of Category:Political parties in italy.

Given this, having parties like New Force or Alternativa Sociale not listed in Category:Political parties in italy is at least odd, expecially if there are not analogous categories enclosing Marxist parties, Christian parties etc. (and the very possibility and/or usefulness of such a clear-cut cathegorization is questionable too).

Since I don't want to start a revert war, I ask your opinion on this. We can move on the New Force talk page if you feel to, anyway let me know. Thanks. --Cyclopia 17:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)