User talk:Dahn/Archive 32

Pann et al
Thank you. How about "trimmed" for "tunsă" - it conveys the hair-cutting metaphor better. I've never heard of the Hristoitia either, but a few Google searches lead to the following. Saint Nicodim Aghioritul wrote a work (1803) by the same title, and it is translated as Bunul moral al creştinilor or Cartea bunelor moravuri creştine, and has been described as "unul din cele mai importante tratate de duhovnicie". Pann's work is given as Şcoala moralului. I don't (yet) know of the connection between the works by Nicodim and Pann, or more about their contents. Biruitorul 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I read that site too - I think only one other page mentions the expression, after all. I'd say your interpretation coincides with mine. I don't know if an older Greek original would necessarily exist - "aghiorit" means "of Mount Athos" (Agion Oros in Greek), so for Nicodim, even if his work was not in Greek, a Greek title (given where he lived and the importance of Greek in Orthodoxy) would not be something unusual. Biruitorul 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That could be - Nicodim, after all, helped compile the somewhat analogous Philokalia. Lacking more extensive documentation, though, I don't think I can say anything more definite for the time being. Biruitorul 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've done those six minority parties, let me make a couple of notes. a) I didn't label or categorize the Union of Romanian Jews as a party, though I suppose it was one (like the UDMR, which claims not to be a party) - what's your view? b) I'm actually close to creating an article on Ion Vinţe / János Vincze. I used Vincze in the MADOSZ article because I assumed he was still using that name at the time - is there a guideline on this? And when I do create his article, should it be under Ion Vinţe, Ion Vincze, or János Vincze? c) I think of the six, at least one ought to be DYKed. Any suggestion as to which one? Biruitorul 19:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great job on 1848. I agree - I wish the articles were richer in documentation, but I did base them all on one source. Whatever else we can turn up, I'd be glad to see go in there. For the Hungarian angle, for instance, there's this site, which appears quite rich (it features an entry on the Magyar Party's newspaper, for instance), so hopefully we can find someone to translate.
 * Vincze sounds fine to me. The way we deal with pseudonyms seems to vary: John Garfield is apparently referred to as Garfield even before he changed his name, but Marilyn Monroe is not. Vincze throughout, though, does follow the Luca/Foriş precedent, so no problem. Biruitorul 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
A short question: why not to specify that Iuliu Maniu was a Romanian and in the same time insisting that at Valter Roman it should be specified that he was a Romanian? R O   A M A  T  A A  | msg  17:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your answer - sorry for disturbing, I just didn't understood. But Iuliu Maniu wasn't he citizen of The Kingdom of Romania? And in this case haven't he a Romanian citizenship? -- R O   A M A  T  A A  | msg  17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. Just an opinion: people many times confuse ethnicity with citizenship and saying that "Maniu was an Austro-Hungarian politician" could create the impression that he was Hungarian. Wouldn't be (maybe) more adequate to say: :"Iuliu Maniu (January 8, 1873&mdash;February 5, 1953) was an politician in Austria-Hungary and Kingdom of Romania" (or something like this)? I mean this can no more create this kind of confusion (my opinion) and it comunicate to the reader the same thing about the citizenship. -- R O   A M A  T  A A  | msg  18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[Do you have an oppinion about this]?

Oh, I see. In that case maybe it should be someone else who proposes him - I am very inexperienced in these matters. I have written on Jmabel's talk page, and gave links at yours, Turgidson's and Illythr's. Jmabel is an admin, isn't he? (for some reason I have him so on my own page!, but don't remember who told me):Dc76 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rabbis by country cats
Hello Dahn, sorry to remove the Romanian and American rabbi cats from Rabbi Rubin and perhaps other rabbi-by-country cats in other rabbi articles you haven't yet seen. Its just that a)I'm not a big fan of rabbi-by-country cats in general, and b)many rabbis are in far too many rabbinical categories, creating needless duplication, confusion - and this chokes categories. I would only put Rabbis in American or Romanian rabbi cats, for example, if a)they lived the vast majority of lives in that country and did not spend large amounts of time in any other b)they can't be placed for whatever reason in far better and clearer cats that grade by occupation and religious leanings (eg Modern Orthodox rabbis, Hasidic rebbes). What would you do if a Rabbi was born in Country X where his entire family came for for generations, moved to country Z for a rabbinical posting, then fled to Country G before WW2, and finally retired to Country H? Would you have four different cats eg Romanian, American, Israeli, Polish rabbis? Where does it end? For this reason above all others I am not in favout of rabbi-by-country categorisations. Thank you, Lostvelt 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your Question
thanks for replying soon. I asked that b/c you started the article in such a complete form, a quite long text, with so many references, and so on. Good job. 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sebastiani
I do sympathize with your frustration about FA insisting on more than the FA standards explicitly require; I am running into much the same problem at GA. (The difference, I think, lies in the expectation that FA be our best articles; WP:WIAGA is an arbitrary middling line, and the habit of WP:GA/R of raising the bar at whim is unfair to all concerned.)  I am therefore going to leave my comments as FAC as comments.

Nevertheless, I do think, without any WP:POINT that this article would be better if differently cited; I hope these comments will assist you in persuading the other editor of this. If you want help replacing or reformating the notes, do let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that it's that bad; most of my objections deal with format, not with content; and if, say, Encyclopedia Americana is stripped out, that will still leave two sources, which (I would argue) should be combined into a single footnote; but I agree that changing format would be a job of work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ploieşti
Was there an edit conflict between us, or something? Please double-check. Thanks. Turgidson 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, good -- not a problem (we seem to have the same reflexes at times :)).  While at it, could I bother you with a small request, and ask you to take a look at the article on Kogălniceanu? I spent some time yesterday copy-editing and wikifying it, only to realize after a while (to my great dismay) that the whole blob of text I was working on was something newly added, by a simple copy-paste operation from the external link provided at the bottom!  (This was done more-or-less at the same time as the Ploieşti edits, by the same editor, who just started at WP, and may not have much experience). So I don't know what to do -- it's a pity to lose all those links (eg, I had to spend a while figuring out whether "Humboldt" referred to Alexander or his brother Wilhelm -- not totally clear from the context), but it seems to me we cannot just leave the page as is.  Any thoughts on how to proceed? Try to salvage bits and pieces, and work from there?  Or start anew? Turgidson 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, good idea. I'll put the stuff in a "sandbox" later tonight or tomorrow (got to start using one), and then we can figure out how to proceed. Gotta be nice to the newbie -- I know how confused I was about things when I started -- I assume he meant well, but the copy-paste is obvious.  At any rate, I think we can do better than that text -- it's written rather clunkily, and leaves many things out.  If Biru wants to join, too, that would be great.  Talk more about it when we're all ready.  Turgidson 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I put a copy of the Kogălniceanu article in my sandbox. So how do we proceed from here?   I've never worked on an article this way, but I imagine it can't be much different than the usual way -- we'll work out the kinks as we go, I guess.  How about the following:  you take the lead now, and see what Biru has in mind, too, and then I'll start editing again once the structure of the article is clearer?  (Although I may do some cosmetic changes in the meantime, too, if I catch a good moment to do so.)  I guess we could use the talk page for the sandbox for further discussion, yes?  As for Oxford vs. American English -- my personal preference is for the latter, though I'm not adamant about it.  Turgidson 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, plan sounds good. And yes, American English is what I prefer, if that's OK with you.  Turgidson 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

György Frunda article
Congratulations! I can hardly believe that you have written that article entirely by yourself, but looking at the History tab leaves no room for other conclusions. I find it a very good article. It is very balanced, has lots of sources, to be short: very good! Maarten 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, don't mention it. I think you are pretty right to say that you were (and are?) "bombarded" with comments :). 28 archived talk pages is ehh.... very much indeed! I still am very sorry for thinking that your contributions had a pro-Romanian bias. Quite the opposite is true, they are objective and balanced. Maarten 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rephrase in Gheorghe Funar
Sorry to bother you again, but I would like to invite you to give your opinion on Talk:Gheorghe Funar about a possible rephrasing of a part of the text. The current text seems to be a compromise between the two "camps" as it is full of dates and percentages supporting and denying the claims of both Romanians and Hungarians to Transylvania. That makes it of course a poorly written article; instead of being an article about Funar it has become a sort of "short history of Transylvania".

Moreover I find the phrase "despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian" a bit offensive. It sort of denies all cultural claims by Hungarians to Transylvania because they are not in a majority there. Possibly not meant that way by the person who wrote that, but that doesn't make it less POV.

Anyway, all my reasoning about this is on that talk page, and I have proposed a rephrasing. I am a bit hesitant to edit the article, since it can easily result in an edit war. If you have time, would you like to give your opinion about the rephrasing on the talk page? Thanks in advance :). Maarten 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for the support! I think I'll give it a go. Maarten 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

user:TSO1D
Hey, Dahn, do you have any comm channels to him? He disappeared abruptly and without warning right after becoming an admin - a rather strange event. His last activity seems to have ceased around the 1st of April. I wrote him an email some time ago, but received no reply. 'Tis weird... any ideas? --Illythr 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I'm asking. One of the most valuable Romanian editors out there... gone. I understand, when people wanna leave, they usually close their pages and leave an "I'm gone" notice. TSO1D left right in the middle of his adminning activity... Besides, he self-nomed, so I think he was quite up for it and didn't break under all the lock/unlock page routine... Hm, know anyone who had worked more closely with him? --Illythr 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kogălniceanu
It is a great idea and coming along nicely. Right now I only have access to online sources, so I will look into those. If there are some in particular you'd like me to convert into article form, let me know and I'll work on those. Meanwhile, three interesting articles in JN this week, with some on the Church next week (!): 1, 2, 3. As I've said before, a good history of the PCR includes the word "verification" somewhere in it, so it's good we now have an article devoted to those campaigns. Biruitorul 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks for tidying up the articles about the true romanian heroes. you can be very helpful when you don't hang out with philoguardists.Anonimu 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If those are your heroes, so be it. Just don't slander me in the process, please. Biruitorul 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This harassment is pretty annoying...Anonimu 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Biruitorul has this page on his watchlist. Dahn 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * this was not a general conversation on some metaphysical subject. It was just me thanking your for some of your work on wiki. he had no reason to intervene, except to harass me, of course.Anonimu 21:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good guess, Dahn, but I actually don't keep a watchlist, so no. And Anonimu: had you stopped after the first sentence, it would indeed have been wrong for me to intervene. It's the second sentence that prompted my intervention, as it contained an unjustified personal attack. By repeatedly calling me a fascist, fascist sympathiser, and similar slander, you damage my reputation here, and eventually there will be consequences. Please stop, and stop accusing me of harassment as well, as I was quite justified in defending myself. Biruitorul 22:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was general remark. If you feel that characterizes you, it's your problem...Anonimu 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While I have to say that I'm quite content that, prima facie, Anonimu's articles are neutrally voiced and required only facade changes, as well as being pleasantly surprised by his thanks, I cannot help but agree with Biruitorul that his the last part of the post was gratuitous to say the least (personally, I do not take offense in the subtle twist of me "hanging out etc.", since I don't have anything but praise for the work accomplished by Biruitorul on this project, regardless of his political opinions, and irrespective of the unfair caricatures made of his opinions).
 * Btw: how come you don't keep a watchlist? And do you also un-watch articles you create? Dahn 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that endorsement. I also agree that Anonimu's articles required only minor changes, but wish he would stick to commenting on content, not editors, and not attack me in the way he has done for months on end (and unjustly).
 * I suppose I just never got into the habit of watchlisting. I do keep a list of my articles, and go through some of them from time to time, but for the most part my editing pattern is probably more random than for those who do keep watchlists. 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Islaz
Dahn, you wrote here that Islaz is a part of Turnu Magurele. Are you sure about it? Can you prove this? --Olahus 07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, a separete article about Islaz shoul be created. I couldn't find many concrete actual informations about this locality, but reading this, I can suppose that it is not a part of Turnu Magurele municipality. I also found those maps: 1, 2, 3 and Islaz is always shown as a separate locality. I also found a city map on this site, but I coldn's see that Islaz might be a part this town. I'm pretty sure that Islaz is a separate locality. I will make a separate article about Islaz. --Olahus 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I created an article. It's pretty short, but, at least, it exists now. --Olahus 20:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ion Heliade Rădulescu

 * Grant me 24 hours, and it shall be done. Biruitorul 22:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. One question - I said the Saint Sava School "was shut down" rather than "was disestablished" because, while the latter is a more accurate translation for "desfiinţată", "disestablishment", unless the context is clearer, could be interpreted to mean "separated from the Church" or something like that. My question: was it forcibly shut down, which the current phrasing tends to indicate, or did it "close its doors" (which you might put instead if the action was more voluntary in character)? Biruitorul 02:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles
There seems to be consensus as to which versions should stay. I've added them to my watchlist. Regarding his behaviour, he could do with being blocked for a while to calm down. Unfortunately most of the admins I'd contact normally have already been involved. - Francis Tyers · 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jesus wept! He has been a busy boy hasn't he! :) I've done the same to those... - Francis Tyers · 12:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Székely
Actually I included them because they were born in Székely Land, if you think they don't consider themselves Székely, feel free to revert what I did. --KIDB 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The town was called Székelyvásárhely in the middle ages... However, apart from being half-Romanian now, it is large enough to attract Hungarians from non-Székely territories, too. --KIDB 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it is considered to be part of the Székely territory, it was the centre of Maros Seat for about 700-800 years and the centre of the Hungarian Autonomous Region. But the people who live there now are not all Székelys. --KIDB 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not too accurate, but this is what the Romanian Wikipedia says about it: "Centrul istoric a Ţinutului Secuiesc a fost Târgu Mureş, acum este Odorheiu Secuiesc." and here it says it is a Székely town. I was surprised to read your note that in modern Romanian reference the Szekelyland is generally seen as to the east of Marosvásárhely --KIDB 11:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Though what KIDB wrote is true, I'd be more careful to label the natives of Marosvásásrhely as Szeklers. Maros-Torda county (practically the present day Mures judetul) was formed in 1876 of the Szekler seat Marosszék and half part of former Torda (Turda) county since then Marosvásárhely have been the capital of the new county and attracted a lot of people non-Szekler Hungarians and Romanians as well. I guess half then 50% of Hungarians living in the city are of Szekler descent. --Koppany 08:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The other Sébastiani
Tiburce gets a little mention in this new translation from me. Do you perhaps know of other material so we could come up with at least a couple of paragraphs (though I know your opinion about stubs)? Anyway, feel free to work on the article itself, as there is much room for improvement remaining. Biruitorul 07:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Stuff
Thanks, let me look at that source -- I never thought of that. Speaking of which, do you know by any chance whether the guy is related to this well-known mathematician (originally from Romania)?

About the Battle for Romania (1944): Yes, it would make some sense to redirect "Liberation of Romania" there, but only if one would expand that article to include events not only about the operations in Eastern Romania in August 1944, but also the liberation of Bucharest (which was completed before the Russians arrived there), and indeed the liberation of Transylvania, all the way up to Carei, on October 25, 1944. In fact, there is a competing proposal, by Piotrus, to rename the Battle for Romania as the "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive" -- see the talk page, and also my more detailed comments there -- which would narrow down, instead of expanding the scope of the page. I'd say, either proposal makes sense, and either would be better than the status quo. (Note that the page on the August 23 coup is also not being expanded as it should, surely because of the mess surrounding the page on Soviet occupation.) The question is how to best integrate all these strands, which overlap with both WWII and the start of Communism in Romania. Turgidson 12:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your ideas about how to organize things sound good. I'm not quite sure what you find problematic about "Soviet occupation of Romania" (besides the fact that it's a grab bag for now, due to how the page developed, under constant sniping) -- let me know when you get a chance.  But, at any rate, this whole subject sounds too stressful -- the edit wars never end, at most they go quite for a while, just to come back, in wave after wave after wave.  I'm not sure I can deal with this, I have other interests, where I may be able to contribute better, without all the annoying fights. Turgidson 13:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not helping more with the Kogălniceanu article -- basically because I do not know what else to add at the moment, given my very limited resources about the subject. I kept saying I'll go to the library and try to find out more (whatever could be found on the web is pretty much milked, yes?), but I'm more on a vacation mood nowadays, and got lazy.  By the way, at what point do you think the article should be moved back to mainspace?  Maybe having it back there it would make it seem more "real", and help motivate other people to join in and finish what needs to be finished?  Also, thanks for the input on the Soviet occupation page -- that helps.  I've been waiting to see what the outcome of the CfD for the parent category is, before proceeding; the discussion there seems mildly encouraging.  Finally, I haven't seen the Anonymous masterpiece; does it look straight out of Hieronymous?  Turgidson 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi - on a different note, could you please take a look at the article on Dan Voiculescu? (The politician, that is, not the much better known mathematician!) I've been trying to hold the fort there for a while, but there is someone very determined to impose the "truth" (ie, his POV), without regards to WP policies (which are dismissed as mere "technicalities"). I explained how I view things on the talk page there, trying to reason with the guy (first, just an IP, now has a username -- all single-purpose accounts, at least up to now), but to no avail. I would write to Bogdan, but he hasn't replied to my queries in the past; maybe Khoikhoi could help?  At any rate, before spending more time and heartburn on this, I'd appreciate a second opinion, see if it's worth putting up a fight, or just let it slide.  Thanks.  Turgidson 12:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- hopefully, that guy is going to calm down, and try to edit rationally. At least, he's got the point that you can't simply erase all wikilinks and references just like that -- I achieved something!  I'm not really interested in the article, which is rather messy, and hard to improve -- the controversy reminds me of that classic, I am not a crook speech.   Kogălniceanu: no rush, take your time in adding whatever needs adding, I'll keep an eye, see if I can tweak it here and there; will not make any moves till you give the green light. The Steve Ditko from Tomis:  what a shame I missed that masterpiece!  I'll just try to imagine it, based on hints I got. :)  Turgidson 13:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

infobox writer imagesize
I have no idea why the edit you described is not showing up on my verion of wikipedia in the history or anything. sorry, I have no intention of deleting your fix... I think however it is just as easy to leave Zxwy to fix their bug whenever they next login, but they can do it off the historic version.--Jaibe 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You know better. Stop it. PouponOnToast 13:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Invite
Hi! I still did not have time to write the articles about the fundamentals of the Romani culture and society (that would have permitted a normal presentation, beyond the stereotypes), I hope in the near future I'll manage to do it. From the last discussion I just managed to organize better Category:Romani people by country and Category:Romani people by occupation and create some more articles about Romani persons. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nai soske ("don't mention it"). Of course, your wiki skills are helpful. Btw, do you have any idea what to do with Articles for deletion/Margita Bangová. There I continue to say that this person is not representative, just a target for Toronto sensationalistic media, but I see that many users support its preservation. In the meantime Psychonaut made Category:Beggars, where you can see that beggars deserving a wiki article really have some achievments in their lifetime, they are worthy to remember, their articles are not an active creation of Gypsy image (the way I consider this article). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that you started Category:Romani people and Romanipen in Romania and it looks good. I have in my mind plenty of ideas to expand the articles and make other new, just let's see how I'll manage to get free time for this. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dahn has finally picked a subject in which he is knowledgeable in--and for good reasons, too. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 12:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're implying I have Romani ancestry, I'm afraid I do not have that privilege. If you're implying, as you have, that all Wallachians do, allow me to point out that similar clichés have been produced by people with the same view of the world as you, only in relation to Slavs/Cossacks/Tatars and Moldavians. The implication that I am "not knowledgeable" in other areas is amusing, coming from a man who has not obeyed a single wikipedia guideline on reliable content in his life. Lastly, I have warned you against making such racial judgments in the past, Anittas, and I think you were only too lucky that I did not pursue the path suggested to me by other contributors; rest assured, if you carry on with this, the time will come. Any further harassment and irresponsible jabs from you on this page will be removed without notice, and followed by a fulfillment of the AN/I prophecy. Dahn 12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see that user's comment. About Ursari, now I see it is by far the most extended and documented article about a Romani group. I'd have some things to add too, but again when I'll find the time available. Thanks, Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just want to congratulate you on a superb article on Ursari!!!!! it is excellent. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Update
Thank you for your message; I very much appreciate it. One does have to wonder how genuine the offended party's "alarm" at my writing was (ie, it seemed rather theatrical and designed to "get" me), but let me say no more for now - things do appear to have blown over, and assuming good conduct on my part I should be back in good shape in a couple of months. Of course I've been doing fine without adminship, so there's no rush.

To my knowledge, all Orthodox bishops, archbishops and metropolitans are indeed monks. They may not be lifelong monks - for instance, Laurenţiu Streza's wife died in 1992 and he was elected bishop in 1996, but between his election and his consecration, he was made a monk. Of course, Justinian Marina was also a married priest before his wife's death allowed him a career advancement. This requirement is a later development, and there were married bishops in the early Church, but it's safe to assume all the Romanian hierarchs we're dealing with were monks. To that end, I'd go ahead and create a subcategory, "Romanian Orthodox monks", because the main category is bound to grow in size and lose focus over time.

On Ireland: I agree the Pale was at least initially very English. However, there was (and still is) an important Scottish element in the North (naturally; they're quite close), and over time some of that Ulster-Scots aristocracy made itself visible in the Pale as well (for instance in the Parliament of Ireland). Additionally, when Irish became anglicised (adopted English and Anglicanism), I think there was more of a fusion than a complete break with Irishness; the Anglo-Irish remained distinct both from "regular" Irish and from the English. I suppose one may ask: how easy is it to transplant England (or any other nation/culture) across a sea? To some extent the project succeeded for a time, but remained distinct enough not to be purely "English" in the way Sussex or Kent are. Charles Stewart Parnell himself was of Anglo-Irish extraction, which makes sense considering that separatist movements often emerge from those elements of society most in harmony with the colonial or dominant power (see Algeria, Indochina, India). Paisley's identity is tricky: he has stated he's British, and serves in the House of Commons, and while of course he is Northern Irish, I'm sure he'd reject that rather artificial label, preferring instead Ulsterman (though three counties of Ulster remain in the Republic). A Catholic too might reject "Northern Irish", seeing that political entity as illegitimate and preferring "Irish" instead. Anyway, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but it's a highly complex subject to be sure.

I absolutely love the Kogălniceanu piece; it's just the way I'd envisioned it, and I hope to make any minor changes it may need soon. Biruitorul 00:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
If you have some time, please help preserve info in this article, and protect it from vandalism. (I've addressed the same to several other people.) Sorry to bother you, if you are not interested in the subject.:Dc76 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP Romani template
Hi. The problem was that the Template:WPROM was itself placed in all those categories, meaning that any articles the template was inserted into were also made part of those categories. I have thus wrapped the category links around a "noinclude" tag so that they are not longer included in pages where the template is applied. This seems to have solved the problem at Talk:Ursari. However, I think the template has to be manually deleted and reinserted in order to remedy this at all the other articles. Ronline ✉ 00:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Caragiale
Coincidentally, I was thinking about expanding this article, earlier today. I only added a few refs, but of course, a huge ammount of stuff is missing. I was thinking of adding a few more photos (there are some good ones on the commons), but there is simply not enough text to hold them as of now. At any rate, this could be a good project -- I think I know a bit more about Caragiale than about Mr. K, so I could probably contribute more. While at it, I think there should be at least some stubs on his main plays -- one needs to fix the English translation first (eg, I saw various variants for D-ale carnavalului). Now, there is already an FA on ro.wiki on this -- how much in common would the two articles have? One doesn't want to reinvent the wheel, but it's also good to bring something new, if possible... Turgidson 02:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, nice article about Asachi -- I didn't know about all that politics that surrounded him. What's happening with DYKs -- they're just overwhelmed with them, and cannot keep track anymore? At any rate, going back to ILC, I can start anytime, maybe in a few days it's better, I really need to finish up something else (non-WP) before getting too much into it.  I haven't really looked at the ro.wiki article, just fished some refs as a starting point -- fine by me to start basically from scratch.  I may get more involved with some of the ancillary stuff -- eg, impact on culture, and his leagacy (eg, things that bear his name) -- and starting some stubs as needed, to avoid too many redlinks.  BTW, a fun thing to do would be to trace down all the phrases in Romanian that come from his plays (renumeraţie după buget mică, etc).  Surely some of this must have been collected somehwere -- but would that be of interest for en.wiki?  Turgidson 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let's discuss a bit more this project, before plunging into it (it's a rather daunting task!) In the meantime, I'll try to line up some books myself.  One thing I have in handy is O făclie de Paşte -- it's not listed in the current article (!), but it's also on wikisource; in the book I have (a collection of translations into English), it's among the top short stories of all time (it happens to be one of my favorites, too).  Influence on language: I was trying to see if there is something in the Shakespeare articles along these lines (it's a well-known object of study, I think), but couldn't readily find the info.  At any rate, I'd be curious to see if anyone makes a good case about Caragiale's influence on spoken Romanian, and, mutatis mutandis, how would that compare to Shakespeare's.  Surely not as profound (if nothing else, it came much later to make such a lasting impact), but still. Finally, yes, good idea, we'd also need articles on some of the classic characters -- and also, while at it, develop the articles on the actors who played some of the classic roles (I've been cleaning up a few, recently, but it's a Herculean task.)  Turgidson 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * About Conu Leonida, Dandanache & al: it's all fascinating, but I wouldn't know where to start -- I haven't yet attempted to write about characters here at WP. So maybe it would be safer to postpone those aspects for now, and concentrate on the straight biographic narrative, with a dose of literary evaluation + an attempt at legacy? Even that much seems like a full plate, but one could build on a more solid foundation from there.  At any rate, I have no strong opinion as to how to present the various characters in Caragiale's plays -- probably the format will develop naturally once the basic stuff is in place, and the way you propose sounds good to me, at least as a starting point.   Turgidson 00:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Allright, then -- I'll put the article in my sandbox in a couple of days or so, and we'll take it from there, one step at a time. Turgidson 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alas, that bit about a "couple of days" was to optimistic, but I'm getting there. Final editing can be tricky, not only at WP... Hopefully, before St. Ilie. (By the way, I'm not sure where to link that on en.wiki.  List of saints doesn't have him; maybe Elijah?)  Turgidson 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA and DYK. As for Caragiale: by now you must know me to be the king of broken promises, so I'll be wiser and not make a firm commitment just now. However, as things develop, I at least anticipate jumping in and helping in one way or another. (By the way, thoughts on IC Frimu? Right now it lacks a reference covering the whole of the material, which I'll try to extract from its ro.wiki author, and says fairly little about the man himself -- much of the latter part is fodder for the eventual labour movement article. If you have additional material, it is of course welcome.) Biruitorul 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, I read your message on my talk page. Of course I would like to join you in your effort of improving the article on Caragiale. However, I do not have much time to spend on topic research, that is why my edits are mostly on small articles, and sometimes inter-wiki translations (usually FA or important articles from English to Romanian). In this respect I had started to translate the Caragiale article from Romanian, because I find that, although the standards for an FA on Romanian Wikipedia are quite low, the current English language article is brief and not much better or richer than a stub. If you want, I can continue my translation (although it won't be done very fast, unless someone else joins in) in my sandbox, and start improving it, so there be a good starting point for further improvements. Other wise, please tell me how I can help. - Andrei 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, don't worry. I don't feel patronized. I can drop the translation project, there's no problem, I hadn't spent more than 15 minutes on it, the day I got started. Then I can help, in any way that I can, on writing the main article. - Andrei 12:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS
Hi Dahn! Well yes, you did right. I don't know what the best name is, I used "chairmen" but you know that the French is "secrétaire général" (which I assume we shouldn't translate literally). But I never understood the procedure to rename categories... Concerning the double inclusion (in "members" and "chairmen", your proposal sounds all right - except perhaps that if the category is not too full, one might be looking just in "members" not knowing that this member is in fact a former "chairman"... Since they are quite important personalities (often also ministers, etc.), I think it's all right if they are included two times). Cheers, enjoy the summer (rainy might it be!) Tazmaniacs 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Great work on the Ursari, nice subject! Nice to have a message from you so I can get to see this! Tazmaniacs 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem for the chairmen/members :) Symbolism is of course a very interesting subject, but I'm afraid I lack competency in art history subjects... Which, of course, is another argument for working on it! Take care, Tazmaniacs 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC comments
I have replied at Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentatus
Hi Dahn, have you got any idea what happened with User:Mentatus? He stopped editing on 23 April, and he was a very good editor. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he putted a "Busy in real life" tag on 1st of June, and then dissapeared. On 23rd April he maked about 100 edits...and then...was over. Strange. --Eurocopter tigre 23:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bre nea Titi, bre, tu nu esti om, bre...
Vroiam sa te anunt ca nu era maica-mea persoana aia care a sunat la DDTV. :D

Frimu
I've made the appropriate cuts for the time being (do make more if I missed something), and look forward to building it up from a more reliable basis. Biruitorul 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Bogdan is back - what if I/you asked him to delete the current image and then you upload another in its stead? Biruitorul 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting overview and could be used to mine some numbers - one also gets a good sense of how the history of the movement flowed and what the most important points are (I also like that it goes quite far back in time). As for the image: how about you upload it with another title then, and assuming no use can be found for the MI one (a fair assumption), I ask for its deletion? Biruitorul 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we should try to become acquainted with the law. Until then, though, let's work through this specific case. Is it a picture of Frimu? If he died in 1919, isn't that old enough to make it PD? If not, our fair use claim could be based on the standard explanations: to illustrate the subject in question, no free equivalent is [readily] available, no effect on the potential market or value of the image. Is there some additional sticking point? Biruitorul 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points. 1: about the original author - we can assume he's dead, given the picture is at least 89 years old. Was he dead in 1937? I can't say, but even if the answer is no, it's possible that has little relevance (given that no one may know his identity). The point is that Wikipedia's copyright policies are created in order to ensure compliance with the law and to prevent lawsuits. Chances we're complying are quite high (if not 100%); chances of a lawsuit from the photographer's descendants are essentially zero (and anyway it could be speedy-deleted if an issue came up).
 * 2: On fair use, from the guideline: "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The article must create a need for the media such that its omission would be detrimental to the reader." As I understand it, the answer is no, the photograph itself needn't be a subject of discussion, though I'd be glad to be corrected. Biruitorul 04:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? I think we can be trusted. Seriously, though, I'm out of answers, but my feeling is that a properly-worded Fair Use rationale is still possible. I suggest asking User:Butseriouslyfolks, who's somewhat of an expert on image copyright issues (in general, not Romania-specific). Biruitorul 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What can you infer from this chart? The answer seems to be yes, probably PD, but let's have your legal opinion too. Biruitorul 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's something that will be of interest to you. It has some flaws -- a probable excess of detail which you may certainly trim, a lack of proofreading that has left it somewhat muddled, only partial access (via Google Books) to Deletant and Petrescu -- but I think it's a decent start and won't require radical changes. Feel free to make the DYK hook more interesting too. I think this is an important element in the individual articles on the labour movement; Griviţa 33 and Braşov 87 continue to await a dramatic expansion, one of these days. I don't know if you want to move back toward Communist-era stuff at present, but here is a fairly new article on anti-Groza peasant resistance -- the material could either go toward the somewhat deficient Romanian anti-communist resistance movement or, even better, to a whole new article on collectivisation, à la Collectivisation in Hungary. Anyway, this is food for thought, as I'll be off-wiki for some days. Biruitorul 04:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)