User talk:Dahn/Archive 33

Greier
Hey, what did I miss? :-) Have you seen this? Khoikhoi 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant besides Greier, what did I miss in the month that I was away? I see you've pulled another FA, which one was it? Anything else happened? Khoikhoi 00:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He hasn't edited in awhile. Both articles look extremely good, congrats. Any other articles that you hope to make featured? Khoikhoi 05:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"National colors"
Thanks for help in eliminating nonsense from Romanian language article. -- AdrianTM 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about false map
If you want to see something interesting you must to look article Borders before and after Yugoslavia, PANONIAN map of Serbia in 1918 and our discussion about this map. Discussion is on discussion page of article for which I have given you link. In last week I am fighting with PANONIAN that this fantasy map in which even Pecs and Timisoara are Serbian territory be deleted on wiki. ---Rjecina 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:People by county in Romania
Great! That's something long overdue. Of course, it needs a few more counties -- one problem though is what to do with the historical ones, when boundaries do not quite match. I'd say keep keep it simple and go with present-day boundaries, with perhaps an explanation on the category page itself that the respective county may include a piece of old xyz county? Turgidson 11:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourced
What do you mean exactly ? Isn´t it enough to say that he stated that at the end of his presentation for "Greatest Romanians" ? Because I don´t know how exactly to document it. --Venatoreng 17:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bačka
Hi Dahn,

I would like to ask you to help me on the discussion page with user PANONIAN regarding to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%C4%8Dka. As summarization: PANONIAN wrote the Demograpics part with some explanation. I think PANONIAN's work is a very good summarization of the viewpoint common among Serbs. But there exist another viewpoints, in this case Hungarian, which may differ form Serbian. For example: in the article it is written that the 1941 census was unreliable, but nothing is written to censuses 1921 and 1931. Hungarian historians think 1941 census was relaively reliable, but here were many problems with 1921 and 1931 censuses. I don't want to say that Hungarians hold the divine truth and the Serbs not, but according to Wikipedia's NPOV every relevant viewpoints has to be presented in a fair way.

I don't want to write here all my problems with that section; I think I've summarized them in a fair way. At first please read Demographic (2) part on discussion page, there are 4 (in fact: 3) points, which I think not neutral, the explanation why I consider it not to be neutral, and a proposal.

Thanks for your help in advance: Csaba Faragó

Fcsaba 12:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kehoe criticism
Hi, Dahn. I saw your talk page post about moving the section on Kohoe's criticism of Eliade's Shamanism. You said you added a request for specific page numbers. However I wasn't able to find where that request is. Did you mean that the post itself was a request for said page numbers, or did you actually put the request somewhere in the article? I was about to put "citation needed" notices in the Kehoe passage again, but I held off when I read your post. I could still put up those notices, of course, but it would look kind of weird to have "citation needed" notices in a passage that does in fact have a citation at the end of it. --Phatius McBluff 18:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. For the time being, it's fine the way it is. Thanks. --Phatius McBluff 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Gândirea
Do you just want me to do a review of Gândirea or do you want to post the article for GA again? Awadewit | talk  19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Poza PF-ului
Bai, nene. Tu cred ca ai ceva cu poza PF-ului. Mai citeste si tu legislatia in vigoare, taticule. Poza unei personalitati n-are copyright. Mai potoleste-te!

Art.88 (3) Autorizarea nu este necesară pentru difuzarea unei opere care conţine portretul:

a) unei persoane general cunoscute, dacă portretul a fost executat cu ocazia activităţilor sale publice; b) unei persoane a cărei reprezentare constituie numai un detaliu al unei opere ce prezintă o adunare, un peisaj sau o manifestare publică.

(LEGE nr.8 din 14 martie 1996 privind dreptul de autor şi drepturile conexe ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D39 (talk • contribs).

Eternal return (Eliade) addition
I incorporated Nishidani's Kirk quote into Eternal return (Eliade). I know you don't consider yourself very familiar with Eliade's scholarship. However, there was no reason not to let you know, in case you don't. --Phatius McBluff 06:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Some quick points
Hello. I hope all was well in my absence.

1. I'll excise that Bombing of Bucharest material as soon as practicable. When I wrote the piece, my grasp on WP:RS was fainter, but I certainly wouldn't use it today. (Of course the information is most likely true, just unsourced.) Indeed, that article deserves a revisit -- I have some passages from Mihail Sebastian's diary for those days floating around somewhere, and eventually we may wish to use them somehow. Anyway, it's something to keep on the agenda.

2. Great work on the Roman Catholicism article. One point, though. In general cathedral naming is a mess, but I've tried to keep Romanian cathedrals named "Cathedral of Saint X, X city" -- see here, unless a compelling reason exists for naming otherwise. Thus I'd say links ought to point to "Cathedral of Saint Joseph, Bucharest", though now that I think about it, "St. Joseph's Cathedral, Bucharest" sounds more natural, but in any case something in that vein is, I think, preferable.

3. In that vein, I've been toying with the idea of creating a template with the theme of religion in Romania, bringing together articles on (let us say) the officially-recognised religions in Romania (I think there are about 18) -- Islam in Romania, Reformed Church in Romania, etc. What say you?

4. But, as expected, no real edits have happened here, and the kind but empty platitudes you were given is the last we've heard on the matter. I'm tempted to nominate for deletion -- it's massive and unnecessary. What do you think?

5. What do you think of this list? Is it worth including, and if so, under what title? "List of Romanian names of Hungarian-language origin"? Maybe, but a bit unwieldy.

Well, enough for the moment. Biruitorul 08:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thorough replies. I will try to take care of the Gândirea issue but am still catching up with other things. For the time being, let me address point 3. I agree the religious education article needs work (do note who created it); I will look out for sources, particularly on Islamic, Catholic and Reformed education. Here is a first attempt at the template. Feel free to work on it (or if you think it's unworkable, let me know). If you can find a neater solution for the Lutherans, do make that change.
 * My source for the list was the bottom of link 1. Link 2 might also be useful. About the newer religions like Mormonism or Hinduism: well, you're right that they exist in Romania, but where exactly does one stop? I think state recognition provides a useful, neutral benchmark. However, this model could also work, and we could certainly link Hinduism and any other unrecognised faiths there. Biruitorul 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
This should conclude the matter, with my apologies. If I am not banned, I will some weeks hence return to supply information on Eliade's diaries (from the French trans.)


 * Thanks Dahn, I appreciate that. I was reluctant to abuse the function of that page but thought you needed a clarification as to why I had not come up with the goods as undertaken. I didn't either intend to involve you or McPhattius (yes I know Phattius McBluff!) in this, and I won't. I am not disheartened, but rather bemused, because I was told by very senior and serious scholars of these issues that touching that area is a waste of time, and the experience bears them out. In all honesty, I should clarify that I was forewarned to 'revert' or risk a ban. I didn't revert for the simple reason that it would mean restoring an edit that is patently false and ideological. I prefer punishment for breaking a rule, rather than endorsing a falsehood to escape it. The said poster in any case did revert three times, just as I did, unwittingly, because I did not 'undo' more than once, but altered manually each successive change, with variation in language, in order to not break the rule. Apparently, I now learn, it is the same thing.


 * I have downloaded your remark on my file. If propriety suggests I remove my remark, and yours, I will do so, and you are free to eliminate yours, so the page can be kept clean and focused on its proper function. It is an excellent page of intelligent collaboration and my work in there, for what little I have done, has refreshed my faith in the dedication to careful work for the public sphere by so many people on Wikipedia.

p.s. re ‘antisemitism’ charge:-

(1) ‘Secondly, Judea is a geographic factual term, used by the United Nations prior to the use of West Bank. Do not push your POV or atleast do it without falsely claiming that it's only a biblical term (which is ridicilous) or that it's a term used by "settlers" whatever that racist comment means. As for other wiki projects, it's again irrelevant, I don't know why you keep saying that. Amoruso 14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)  Talk:Hebron

(2) ‘Again, you used the word "vandalism". Please be aware of this, it's a second warning. And your final sentence stinks of antisemitism (I'm some big bad Zinoist soldier in Hebron for reporting your violations ? That shows bias and I'd stay out of Hebron article then!)’Amoruso 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Talk:Nishidani.

This last remark interprets my final quip ‘From now on I'll have to call this the Kiryat Arba gambit!’. It is certainly not antisemitic, because I referred to an article in the Guardian 2004 in which an ex-IDF soldier visiting Hebron spoke of a settler tactic of harassing Palestinians, getting them to react in defence, then calling in the IDF, which then punishes the Palestinians for defending themselves from assault, which was analogous to Amoruso reverting three times, getting me to revert, and then calling in an administrator to get me banned for several hours. It is an analogy to a specific group of settlers, not to the Jewish people, many of whom are as disturbed as I am by the criminal (Moshe Levinger page) behaviour of many people in that settlement.

My apologies, I think it best to leave it at that. Regards Nishidani 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence
Just to respond to your "thank you" note-- I hope you realize that I never thought you were personally attacking me or anything. Considering how angry some editors get over "original research", you were surprisingly civil when it came to my early work on Eternal return (Eliade). At the time, your comment seemed a bit abrupt to me because I was a starry-eyed newcomer who expected to get hailed with waving palm branches for adding important info on Eliade's scholarship. If anything, your comments helped me learn the ropes, giving me a good sense of what's OR and what isn't. You certainly don't owe me any explanations. Cheers, Phatius McBluff 00:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I commend the gesture.


 * Dahn. Well, I repeat, thanks, and I apologize for the incidental time my minor note caused you to waste. Thanks too to Phatius. I think personally that Wikipedia's editors should be saved as much time as possible from useless altercations, and prefer to plug away without recourse to them. Reasoning is a delicate process, and I am willing to spend whatever time is required to discuss contentious issues with anyone amenable to rational exchanges. As for further accusations, they are water on a duck's back, and I personally am not offended by intemperate language, and won't report it. I shall however register it meticulously, if it does recur, on my pages. Now, let me get back to the proper study, which is lending a minor hand to you guys as to lift the ponderous Eliade into the light of clear exposition. I'll give you a quick sum-up this afternoon of what Furio Jesi's two books have to say with regard to Eliade presently, and in due course, if the storm indeed has blown over, start making excerpts from the Autobiography. Finest regards Nishidani 12:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael the Brave
If you have the time take a look at my edits on the Michael article, I am quite tired by now and my guess is I have made a certain number of typos. I know my system of Notes is at this point quite chaotic and not very elegant but I'm building this as I go along, pretty much from memory so let's leave as it is for the time being. Plinul cel tanar 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will continue editting the Michael the Brave article but in the mean time I moved for his name to be placed in the List of Transylvanian rulers as Prince (and not as governor) and listed the arguments for the de facto and the de jure title in the talk page. While "legitimate" rule in Transylvania during the Long war will clearly be an issue of debate, Michael's legitimacy is, especially in the light of the arguments provided by Rezachevici, no more questionable than Sigismund's during his second rule, Andrew Bathory's or Emperor Rudolf's. And it was certainly more of a fact both from a military and from a "legal" point of view (whatever that ment in Transylvania during the Long War) than Moses Sekely's who is listed as a Prince. Plinul cel tanar 09:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Help
I need your help. User:Wallak (or what I suspect to be a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte) was recently engaged in edits about articles related to Vlachs and Romanians in Serbia. See his contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wallak Basically, he claim that "Serbian government published document by which it recognized that all Vlachs in Serbia are Romanians". He say that these are his sources: http://www.mae.ro/index.php?unde=doc&id=5730 and http://www.adevarul.ro/index.php?section=articole&screen=index&id=25504&search=Timoc I cannot read Romanian, so can you translate for me what these sources say about this question. I read about this issue in Serbian newspapers and the newspapers article that I read said that Serbian government agreed to recognize as Romanians those Vlachs who want to be recognized as Romanians, but not those who want to be recognized as Vlachs. Contrary to this, User:Wallak claims that Serbian government recognized all Vlachs as Romanians (no matter if they want that or not). So, can you tell me what these links say? PANONIAN 21:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is Bonaparte. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion. --Olahus 23:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've answered on Panonian's talk page, and detailed every element that was misconstrued. I must repeat that I view the discussion you link to an infringement of WP:OR, since it dwells on personal interpretations of mostly irrelevant material. Dahn 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vlach language
Dahn, please explain me what kind of manipulation i used in the article Vlach language. I only quoted the article in "Gardianul": "Dupa mai multi ani de tergiversari din partea Guvernului sårb, limba romåna a fost pentru prima data recunoscuta ca limba materna. Actul in care se recunoaste acest lucru confirma infiintarea Consiliului National al Romånilor din Serbia (CNRS). [...] Autoritatile sarbe au emis confirmarea inregistrarii Consiliului National al Romanilor (Vlahilor, n.r. ) din Serbia. Consiliul reprezinta comunitatea romaneasca din Timoc si are precizat in statut ca limba materna este limba romana. Paragraful care prevede acest lucru este unul din motivele pentru care Guvernul de la Belgrad a refuzat sa recunoasca timp de mai multi ani CNRS-ul. Petar Ladievici, fostul secretar de stat pentru minoritati, a conditionat infiintarea acestui organism, cerand sa fie eliminat din statut limba romana ca limba materna". What kind of manipulation is that? --Danutz

Deletion of your sandbox
Sorry silly mistake. Pascal.Tesson 17:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all good! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Update
My apologies for having been rather slow of late, and my sympathies for your attacks by malicious forces -- I hope you pull through. Meanwhile, though: we spoke of this. Biruitorul 06:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. Usual apologies for the delay, but I keep getting sidetracked. Caragiale should (really should) get my attention very soon. Thank you for fixing my user page -- I very rarely look there, so things like that could go unnoticed for a while. The user in question (:>) is travelling and also feeling some Wiki-fatigue, but should be back eventually. Also, no, I didn't feel like you were interrogating me: I welcome any and all questions, so long as they're intelligent, and with you that's bound to be the case.
 * I can't say this with full certainty, but I'm quite sure the state recognises denominations. I don't object to using full names, but at the same time, an abbreviated version, provided it's not too colloquial (and I tried to avoid this), would have the advantage of being more readily intelligible. I remain eminently flexible on this issue.
 * On the other branches of (eg) Catholicism: again, I don't know, but my informed guess is that they are recognised through their "parent" branch. I like the idea of small print in parentheses leading to these rites. My less-certain guess is that Eastern Rite Ukrainian Catholics are recognised through the BRU, but that really would require some additional research.
 * On the issue of religions without state recognition: my own view is that for now, we should include those religions with stable articles (ie, not bound to be deleted) on their Romanian branches. At present that only includes Hinduism. Should the list mushroom, then we can reassess, but for now, this seems a workable solution.
 * No, the Lutheran branches do not exclude any ethnicity. Of course one probably is 100% German and the other 98% Hungarian and 2% Slovak, but that was merely a shorthand formula I expect to refine. Maybe removal of the word "ethnic", to make it more ambiguous, or maybe full names as you suggested - either could work.
 * Yes, I think the Religious education article should include all levels at present, with split-offs when it becomes necessary, so theological institutes would be appropriate for inclusion.
 * By the way, a contributor to watch. Not so much adding controversial content (though he does that too), but for the atrocious grammar and formatting he uses: 1, 2, 3, 4. Learn the language first, then contribute to the wiki!
 * Finally, a question on Roman Catholicism. Is it worth adding a section on anti-Catholicism in Romania here? Alternately, if you think it's better to keep it all in the main article, I note some intriguing silences in the present, otherwise sterling article: 1930-45, and the Ceauşescu era. The Guard, the FRN, the National Legionary State, church-state relations under Ceauşescu: surely that is fertile ground, and if we look for evidence of anti-Catholicism we may well uncover it there. I'm not criticizing, just hinting at new possibilities. Biruitorul 08:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Timoc
De ce refaci permanent aceasta pagina? Aici mi-am expus acum 2 zile punctele de vedere fara ca cineva sa mai fi reactionat la ele. Banuiesc ca unii utilizatori cred ca sunt und cont fals al altui utilizator, dar eu sunt dispus sa fiu verificat in acest sens.--Olahus 07:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mersi pentru raspuns. Voi analiza cu atentie indicatiile tale de indata de timpul imi va permite acest lucru. Pana atunci ma voi abtine de la editarea articolelor disputate. --Olahus 12:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lefts
Hi Dahn! How's it going? I've initiated a translation of a short article by a student from French Wikipedia and completed with other information (unsurprisingly, the student - from Sciences-Po - overlooked the French Turn, which myself only came to know through Wikipedia! Trotksyism and Anarchism are not held in high regard at Sciences-Po... despite the relative importance of both on the History of the Left in France). I'll be pleased if you could review and complete the article when you have some time. Maybe you could also add stuff on international connections, which are not that well known in France. Cheers! (PS: we also have to adress the complex issue of ultra-left and conversion to the far-right, something which has happened all over the century, from far-right interpretations of Georges Sorel to the Neo-Socialists to the Vieille Taupe...) Tazmaniacs 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, don't worry for late replies, I'm the same... We'll have time to work on this article, and it's going to take some time... Concerning Sarko not being able to take so much vodka as his fellow president, it was quite funny --- but more disturbing was the pressions brought upon the Belgian speaker; we're becoming to be used to such censor Sarkoship, should we call it? Tazmaniacs 14:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Vlach language
Dahn, I provided two independent sources on that matter. There are also many other. As the event is recent is somehow difficult to find an official source on this matter. But Gardianul and BBC are two different sources that I find very reliable, especially BBC that is a British source. I know you have a problem with me and with the Romanian language but you can't ignore the facts, this is not your own blog it is a common enciclopedia. Also, I didn't claim I speak English perfect, I live in Romania where I don't need to speak English as Romanian is the language here. But for your information I speak Spanish, Portuguese and German better, as this languages are more important for myself at this moment, and I need them more than English. --Danutz


 * Of course I parafrazed the article because the text in the newspaper article should be integrated in the prose of the Wikipedia article. But, if you want that to be changed then we will do it so:


 * The BBC article is just about the recognition of this Council and it clearly says "limba română a fost acceptată ca fiind limba lor maternă". (Serbia recognised Romanian as the native language of the Vlachs)


 * Gardianul: "Dupa mai multi ani de tergiversari din partea Guvernului sårb, limba romåna a fost pentru prima data recunoscuta ca limba materna. Actul in care se recunoaste acest lucru confirma infiintarea Consiliului National al Romånilor din Serbia (CNRS)." (The document wich aknowledges this (the fact that Romanian is the native language of the Vlachs - n.m.) confirms the foundation of the National Council of the Vlach (Roumanian) National Minority)


 * Serbia recognised Romanian as the native language of the Vlachs + The document wich aknowledges this (the fact that Romanian is the native language of the Vlachs - n.m.) confirms the foundation of the National Council of the Vlach (Roumanian) National Minority + the date when this happend = Serbia recognised Romanian as the native language of the Vlachs, through the act of confirmation of the National Council of the Vlach (Roumanian) National Minority in August 2007.


 * About the other affirmation. I'm not sure I wrote it myself, but if I wrote it I did it much time before, not when I added the material reffering to the recognition of the Romanian language. --Danutz

The BBC article doesn't have any reference to the Vlach language, as it naturaly asumes is doesn't exist as Romanian was aknowledged as the language of the Vlachs. By stating Vlach and Romanian are identical it would have brought to confusion, and the article would have been contradictory: The language of the Vlachs is Romanian. Romanian and Vlach are identical. I don't know if you know what I mean, I don't know how to explain this better, but hopefuly you can understand something from this. I added to the sentence "According to some sources in the media (among others BBC and Gardianul), Serbia recognised Romanian as the native language ..." Maybe that will make te affirmation more correct, until we have an official document stating this. --Danutz

Second Vienna Award
I had a look at the article about the Second Vienna Award, I don´t think it´s any good, but I KNOW it´s about a real, objective event, so surely we can just write what actually happened, the relevant, clear things that happened, citing our sources. I mean, I´d preffer a stub. I appeal to you because I believe you wrote appreciated articles till now. --Venatoreng 21:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Cioran question
Dear Dahn,

I am currently looking into Cioran and found the anekdote on Wikipedia in which Cioran's mother says she would have had an abortion if she had known her son would be so unhappy. I was wondering where you found this anekdote, because I would like to use it for my thesis. I hop you can help me. Thanks in advance, Lynne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Pantazi Ghica
Thank you, I'll look into it when I get the time. At the moment I'm quite busy and I'm taking it easy on the edits. I'm glad you like my pictures from Buzău. It does have its industrial areas and concrete "matchboxes", and unfortunately for the city, they are the most visible for outside visitors. In fact, I should bring in two or three pictures from those areas too, next time I get there. - Andrei 08:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Metropolit
No, I disgree. As long as on the surface it appears as simply "Metropolitan" it should not link to a specific metropolitan - however, I think that the (red) link to "Neofit" should not just be to such a not unusual name but to something like "Neofit, Metropolit of ...."

Another issue: what actually happened to Scarlat Callimachi in 1807/1810? Str1977 (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this: List of Patriarchs of All Romania Str1977 (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The Islander 20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, before this goes any further, can I suggest you step back and cease editing, 'else you risk violating WP:3RR. This user is having a field day slagging you off on my talk page - to aid in my blocking him, can you please point me specifically to his non-constructive edits on the above mentioned article? With a quick scan, I see nothing wrong with his work. The Islander 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and there you go. He has now been blocked for five years. I will assume good faith and revert to your last edit. Though I understand that you got angry at what he was calling you, I again ask that you just try and relax. If all else fails, log off, and let other editors deal with it for a while, 'mkay? Hope all's well ;) The Islander 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Links
This is all a matter of style. Of course there can and should be links to the country but by artificially messing up a very simple sentence: "X" was "Prince of Y" - hence we link either to the article on that post "Prince of Y" (to explain what this is) or to a "list of Princes of Y" (to put X in his chronological context. To hide "(List of) Prince of Y" under the word "Prince" is no good. If anyone needs to explain "Prince" it should link to Prince. If "Y" appears somewhere else in the article, we link it there. If it is not, that's not terrible either, as the article "(List of) Prince of Y" contains the needed link in the very first line. Str1977 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't see your problem either. And disagreeing doesn't mean to be "unreasonable". I never said that this was meant to fool anyone. What I said is that the former version was messed up. Str1977 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Many things are messed up in these articles (structure, language, different forms of names) and there are definitely worse issues. But still, this messes up things too as it needlessly creates tiny linked bits (and one link, the one to Prince is actually totally superflous). You needn't try to convince me. Also, "my" way of linking to the list is a common one on WP, just look at Henry II of England.
 * BTW, I am still interested in your answer on Scarlat Callimachi. Str1977 (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PNL continuity
What we really need is an actual history of the PNL, but until we get to that, what do you think of this rather inane revert war -- and in particular, of the redlink to National Liberal Party (Romania, 1875)? We do have separate articles on the PNŢ and the PNŢCD, but personally I see no compelling reason to split: the party considers itself as a continuation of the pre-war party (even if the continuity is a bit thin), and impartial histories like the encyclopedia I cited treat it as such. By the way, we got rid of the World Jewish population template (good), but look at this thing. The madness continues! Biruitorul 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. By the way, on the matter of Communist persecution of Catholics, this new series might contain some valuable material. Biruitorul 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will keep you posted with the template as I get back on track (I keep getting derailed in other directions lately). And yes, a lot of bizarre activity has bubbled up to the surface lately. Just see Soviet occupation of Romania - that old, old edit war has restarted again (though was halted for now after Anonimu, who slapped the dreaded tag back on, requested the page be protected). In restoring the tag, he cited your words in the Ceauşescu discussion, for what it's worth. Biruitorul 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism
Thanks for the revert - much appreciated ;) The Islander 15:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Çelebi
I think what you are looking for is çelebi (capitalization: Çelebi, pronounced similar to chelebey (tʃelebi)), which means something like a 'gentleman', a well-mannered, virtuous, etc. male. It is also used as a title by Ottomans. DenizTC 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that you mentioned it, I think 'courteous' is the better translation. The current usage is exclusively as a historical title. DenizTC 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage
Hey, I think it should read "please click here" and not "click here." This is because in English, you use the soften tone and it is almost incorrect to write or say otherwise. For instance, when you say "sit down," you order the person to sit down; but if you say, "please have a sit," then you ask them to. If you want, we could ask someone more qualified on the matter. Additionally, I think the design of your userpage looks like an Easter Egg. Let me know if you want me to improve it. I will not charge you anything. Oh, and the list of your archives should be added in such a way that it doesn't eat too much space. Anyway, how have you been lately? --Thus Spake Anittas 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine, thank you. When I need your help, I'll ask for it - but don't hold your breath. Please don't modify my user page again, or I'll seek formal mediation for all the incidents of harassment in the past months - all of them. Pretty please. Dahn 09:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All of them? Can you manage to find them all and sort them out? It's good that you used the word "please." Anyway, I was just trying to help you out. You should have assumed good faith. What's the link to the good-faith page? --Thus Spake Anittas 10:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, believe you me, I can. I don't have to AGF, since you should know better than to edit userspaces. Dahn 10:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One can try to edit userspaces, if the edit is an innocent correction, such as a typo. People have done so to my userspace and I thanked them. I'm impressed by your sense of organization. I know for sure that it would take me a long time to collect all your material. If we are to go back to the topic, don't you think what I said is correct?


 * Suparare, suparare
 * Niciodata suparare
 * Daca ne mai suparam
 * Luam valiza si plecam!


 * --Thus Spake Anittas 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset Anittas, and I'm actually glad that you are toning down your attacks on me. I'll take your spam if that is what I have to accept in return, but don't you have anything better to do than to awkwardly try and trip me? Dahn 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm at work, so I guess I could do some work, but I don't find that to be a better choice. You should be flattered! I'm spending the company's money on you! :p --Thus Spake Anittas 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

this and that
Hi there,

Thanks for pointing out that "bloodthirsty Hungarians" article--I needed a laugh, even if it was a rather morbid one. The concepts some people have of NPOV...are you guessing this "John the Historian" and his, um, twin are the Emperor in a new set of clothes? I am, but I could be wrong; he was pretty much gone by the time I came along and I don't know his modus operandi as well as you do--but I think I'm learning!!

And speaking of him, thanks for getting that random crap off my talk page (which I just noticed a few moments ago.) I seem to be a popular target lately...

Anyway, we'll just keep blundering our merry way along I guess. I hope all is well with you. K. Lásztocska 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Irismeister is another name I'm not familiar with, but I certainly have no reason to doubt it. I just figured that since Bonny's obviously been having some fun lately, I conflated the two...and yes, it IS a rite of passage. Next person who calls me a newbie is going down. :)


 * I'd love to help with Hungarians-in-Romania articles, although I must confess that even hu-2 might be a little bit of optimistic overstating of the case for me. However, while my Magyar-speaking is still lagging behind that of my countrymen who had the good fortune of being born back in the old country and/or to Hungarian-speaking parents, my English and writing skills are still good and I would be more than happy to help with clarity, flow and style and related issues. (I'm planning an intensive study of Hungarian for January, so after that I'll hopefully be able to help out with Hungarian-language sources.)


 * Yes, the Báthory thing was a bit of a stretch. I almost put in a dry little remark about Vlad Țepeş, but decided that it was just too easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel, to use a strange Americanism.


 * Don't hesitate (please don't hesitate?) to ask if you would like my input on something, as I'm probably going to have more spare time than I thought earlier today--I'll be busy for sure, but it shouldn't be too hard to find an extra half-hour here and there. I SOOOOO know what you mean about Hungarian-related articles lagging way behind the Romanian contingent--we don't even use our noticeboard that much, and have nowhere near the organization (or frankly, work ethic) as you and Biru. You two are amazing btw, I only wish someday I could be as productive as half of you. (Poor Szigeti is still languishing unfinished. I have three more sections to write before I even *think* about putting it up for FAC, and for that I have to do some research in the library, and I'm lazy...) But yeah, the Hungarian side of things is in total disarray: KIDB stormed off in a huff after one too many fights with Panonian, Alensha is too busy writing the entire history of ancient Egypt on huwiki, István is apparently still being thrashed against the rocks by the tempest of cruel Fortune (uh-oh, am I getting into nautical metaphors again?) and everyone else, self included, is just sort of ooching along. Cucumber season, what can you do? ;-)


 * I did read Bogdan's comment in your link. The Bucium Monastery?! :-D Reminds me of "The Historian", by Elizabeth Kostova--there's lots of the characters poking around in dusty old monasteries in that. (Great book, highly recommended.) And now that I've come full circle, from Țepeş to Erdély to lazy magyarok and back to Tepes, I'd best leave it at that. Best, K. Lásztocska 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Why am I not surprised that the Transylvania massacres thing has turned into a flamewar? Sigh. Although, I guess someone better go break the bad news to Biru that apparently, I'm not just his groupie anymore. :) K. Lásztocska 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I did forget to respond about the Austro-Hungarian category thing. My immediate reaction is to cringe at the thought of creating ethnic subcategories, but that's mainly because I'm still traumatized from my months-long argument with some anon-IP user over Franz Liszt's exact nationality. Moreover, I'm generally opposed to the types of "splintering" and Balkanization that can result from overly-narrow categories (and articles); I'm always more the type to merge and consolidate. So no, I personally would not recommend the ethnic subcategories you suggested, at least not right now.

I still want to know why he thought I was named Karen. Also, in a rather dark way, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one being accused of inappropriate relationships with various Romanians--let's get Biru over here and we can all have a great big groupie love fest. And then get flamed by Boni and Anonimu. Whatever...

Oh, and give my regards to the subjects of your kingdom. K. Lásztocska 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Another criminal confesses! Biruitorul 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apropos - this is ... terrible. Or this - I like this line: "Only Romanian people live in Jac." It seems ro.wiki standards are creeping into some of the Romania-related articles. Speaking of which, this is rather amusing: some of our colleagues there are just discovering footnotes (though I'll say nothing of the Synge fiasco).
 * Anyway, we'll have to see about older territorial divisions eventually, but those two articles aren't much help. Biruitorul 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for your contributions!  Daniel  05:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

old pics
Hmm, that's an intriguing template. One of the things that has caused me the most headaches in uploading old or semi-old pictures is I can never even find the name of the photographer. On the one hand, it makes me think the image in question is PD anyway, on the other hand, I feel like I'm breaking some sort of law not even crediting the artist (especially on fair use pics.) I'll figure it out eventually.

Incidentally: I recently caught a glimpse of the Caragiale article in your sandbox and I must say, wow. If that's not an example of how good Wikipedia can be, then I don't know what is. K. Lásztocska 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ooooch, I'm too tired to reply at length, but it seems I misunderstood your original point about the ethnic subcategories. Yes, now that I understand it, I think it probably is a good idea--and "ethnic Hungarian Austro-Hungarian citizen" doesn't sound redundant to me at all. (although perhaps it would be better to use the term "ethnic Magyar" just to avoid any extra confusion?) The Liszt dispute was actually with an extremely opinionated anon-IP user from Germany with a tendency towards condescension and sarcasm. Not pleasant. Seems to have finally settled down now though. Oh, and just a small correction, Liszt was from an ethnic German family, but (like his father and grandfather) considered himself a Hungarian.
 * I'm exhausted. More later. Oh, and I archived my talk page so it won't screw with your browser anymore. Sorry about that! :) K. Lásztocska 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See also section
Hi! See also section is for related articles, and these are, don't you think? Squash Racket 11:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Talk here, you don't want to break the three revert rule, come on! Squash Racket 11:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Caradja
Hello Dahn,

thank you very much for the contribution to my little article "Caradja". I find the new structure useful but I really would like to insist that the descendants of Constantin J. Karadja and Marcelle Caradja (i.e. the actual family) should be added, as I did it before or in the form that you prefer. It is important to make clear that the (only) actual descendants come from this branch.

Thank you in advance,

best regards,

Stenic74 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenic74 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dahn, sorry, my English was a little bit confusing, indeed, I meant the present-day family which remains unclear in the actual version. The three last generations are still missing. I will try to include them and then we still can do some changes on them, ok?

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenic74 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dahn, with the Prince title I have to disagree with you. Of course was (and is) the title Prince hereditary through their male descendants (for the princely phanariote families). They were reigning families and the boyars were the native aristocracy who were second to them. You can also see that they are princely from their coats of arms where you always will find a crown representing the status of a Prince, and not below. Please notice that f. e. the Caradja family had the title "Duke" already in the Byzanthine Empire, and a Duke calls himself also Prince. Please refer concerning this problem also to genealogical literature like from M. Sturdza where it becomes clear that there can be no doubt about their titles.

Best regards,

Stenic74 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenic74 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Caragiale
I honestly do not know, Dahn! The most logical is to refer to Hydra, but Hydra is not one of the Ionian islands! Kythera yes, but not Hydra, unless he regarded it as one of the Ionian islands (also called Eptanisa), but again this seems a bit strange.

May he refer to a city or village of one of the Eptanisa? Again, I do not know, and I don't have in mind any such city or village starting from -Idr or -Hydr etc. I searched the names of all the villages of the Ionian Islands, and I found no city or village etc. starting with -Idr or -Hydr!

I hope I could help! The only logical solution seems Hydra, but again it is not Eptanisa .... And in Greece we use to call its residents Υδραίους and not Υδριώτες - not that the last term does not exist ...

By the way, I saw the article in the sandbox. A really enormous effort! 500 citations and 147 kb?! You may have to create some sub-articles.

Cheers!--Yannismarou 18:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi — sorry for not helping with this, as I said I would, but I got real busy with all sorts of stuff, and had to put wiki on the back-burner. But I'll be in the environs in the not-too-distant future, so maybe this will inspire me to get back in the saddle.  At the very least, I'll be able to take some pics — let me know if there is anything that's needed.  Turgidson 10:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure you can use my sandbox. I only used it for the Mr. K. project; speaking of which, I'm not sure what to do with that, should one simply erase it?  And yes, I'll take some pics of the Faculty of Law, etc -- also, of the eponymous lycee, which is one of the "legacy" aspects I had in mind.   In the meantime, anything related around this modest adobe?  BTW, how come Mr. Henri himself has no en.wiki page (only on fr.wiki)?  Turgidson 12:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatey, I can't afford that hotel... There is an article on its founder on fr.wiki, but much is left in a haze.  Eg, was he really born in Bucharest (as the article on the hotel says), or in a village somewhere in the "campagne environnante"?  (Seen from the City of Lights, the two may look the same...)  And how should "exerce ... ses talents de violoniste tzigane" be interpreted? I'm becoming curious to know more — sounds like a potentially interesting story, if one could find sources for it.  Finally, OK, I've cleared up the sandbox, please feel free to use it.  Turgidson 16:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Leul? By the way - Liturgical Romania! I'm tempted to create a "pages needing serious attention" section on the noticeboard. Biruitorul 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no recollection of that. At the risk of giving you a heart attack, how about List of villages in Cluj? First, it should be ..Cluj County, Romania. Second, I share your feelings on avoiding village articles, so those redlinks must be painful for you to see (perhaps the blue links even more so). Biruitorul 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem; I do think we're lacking in articles on outdoor sculptures and if it's notable enough (which it is), then by all means. I'll put up a short message on the noticeboard to get the discussion rolling, and leave it to you to jump in with more detailed proposals. Biruitorul 02:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Of possible interest; good for a laugh, anyway, as are the other Pavelescu epigrams. Biruitorul 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-sacrilege law
I am astounded by your reverting me on this issue and directing me to the talk page when you know that Taz has in the past stone-walled any discussion only to later revert to his cherished version. Str1977 (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Deleting source text that I don't like" hardly fits the issue. It is a not so short quote in French, quoted by the historian referred to. I have no problem with presenting the view of the historian, as such, but I think it inappropriate to quote his quotes instead of quoting him. Diderot has not written anything on a law passed long after his death, hence his view is hardly directly irrelevant.

Also, there are other issues involved here, too. Taz apparently thinks that an article has "a source" which somehow stands out among the bibliography (instead of taking the trouble and giving references for all the information given).

Finally, he just blanket reverts and thereby deletes a tag requesting a clarification of "a minor point". Str1977 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, you are addressing things never put forth by me: I never said the article was too big. I never doubted the overall accuracy, merely the aptness of some wordings. However, it is not aptly cited because it is not cited at all. Taz merely gives Jehanney as "the source" and thinks that this is it. Basically, he thinks he WP:OWNs the article. Str1977 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let it rest with that. I have made my case on the talk page and see whether and how Taz responds. Str1977 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * That's an awesome article. Kudos again! K. Lásztocska 12:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I thought the Wiki policy didn't allow users to write about their own biography. :p Nice article, tho. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On self-portraits
That wasn't the first article written by you that I enjoyed reading. I checked on G. Asachi and so far, read half of it. There are many interesting stuff there, altough I would reword the sentence where it says that "Asachi was born in the small town of Herţa, near Dorohoi (presently part of Ukraine)." Some may misinterpret it and think of Dorohoi also being a part of Ukraine. I don't know if you covered this, but Anonimu mentioned an event where Creanga supported a plot to reverse the union of Moldavia and Wallachia. Neither he, nor I, know where to find more info on the matter. I haven't tried too hard, tho, since I'm still hooked up on the 14-16th century. If you know anything about the event, then perhaps you could try to include it in some article. The involved people wanted to reverse the union due to fears that Bucharest would dominate the country and the Moldavian elite would lose its influence. Their fears would come true. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I delayed my response to you because I wanted to read more on Asachi. The information in that article is huge. On the issue of Bucharest: I don't think it's so catastrophic that Bucharest is to be the capital of Ro. What hurts me most is the things it stands for and the centralization it created, which I believe hurt the prosperity of Ro. I don't believe that a capital must be an economical centre. Just look at Australia and Turkey, altough the latter chose Ankara due to strategic reasons.


 * On the issue of the attempted coup: I think the subject is somehow important to the topic, because it explains the attitude and the conflicts of the day. An article on that subject would perhaps be in order. This Jewish question bothers me a bit. I think that Moldavians started to become anti-Jewish when huge amounts of Jews migrated from Poland. Prior to that, I haven't heard of many such reports. On the contrary, the country was known for being quite tolerant towards the Jews. In that case, the anti-Jewish sentiment started as an effect of their migration and not necessarily because of their religion. As for Eminescu being anti-Greek and anti-Bulgarian, I don't agree with your assessment of that making him a racist. Those people worked againt the interest of the country and it is their threat and influence he must have opposed, and not their race. I agree with the idea of terminating the Phanariote influence, unless it was in the interest of the country. If Eminescu was trully a racist, he wouldn't have implied that Bulgarians were cousins with Romanians, arguing that they, too, hail from Trajan. You mention that he said the same thing: "and said that he didn't find all "foreigners" to be bad, but had just meant that some of them were not acting in favor of Romania's interests etc etc." I wish I could say more on this subject, but I don't know much about it. I'm just picking up info from different places, but nothing really substantial. Not yet. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My eyes missed eighteen and got stuck on the word "survey." :p The Hertsa reference is still a bit unclear, because it makes it sound as if both cities are a part of Ukraine. It's no big deal, but perhaps Dorohoi should be removed altogether. Is there a reason or an explanation why he was, as you wrote it, inconsistent in his views? He supported the union when Cuza was elected, but opposed it before and after. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Anittas brought up my name and you indirectly called me a liar, let me name the source: G. Calinescu, Ion Creanga (Viata si opera), Editura Eminescu, Bucuresti, 1973 p. 73-74. He gives a list of the participants, and, as expected, Calinescu describes the participants in bad tones. There's no mention of Asachi, however Calinescu mentions that after the revolt Creanga joined the "fractiunea... ". As a matter of fact, he also mention the polemics between the Junimists, led by I. Negruzzi, and the fractionist Creanga, dubbed by Negruzzi "Popa Smantana", during the 1866 electoral campaign. Creanga was actually introduced in Junimea by Eminescu in 1874, after his long conflict with the church authorities (the church being the main separatist force of those times).Anonimu 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I never called you a liar, either directly or indirectly. What I said is that I don't know that much about the event discussed, that I don't have access to sources right now, and that it seemed unlikely to me, prima facie, that IC took part in the incident. Since you cited no source in your original message, and since my info on the subject did not include any mentions of IC, I allowed myself to speculate. I knew very well that IC joined Junimea after the incident, and you'll find mention of this in the original message I left on Anittas' talk page. That said, I would love to see the info on IC and any other such detail on any page involving the period (the IC article, the Fractiunea article, and wherever else necessary). For my part, I will look into other sources to add more detail, and not to contest your insight. Chill. Dahn 23:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)