User talk:Dahn/Archive 16

NPA

This is an impolite edit summary. Please refrain from calling me a liar again and check the article I told you. Also, kindly don't blow so much steam over such silly disputes! If you feel so strongly about if both city names will be linked, we may make a... straw poll if you wish! •NikoSilver• 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we in agreement on the current content? Miskin 01:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic or Muslim pride is a phrase I took from Britannica's Ottoman Empire article, and the rest about regarding Western cultures unworthy of attention, was almost directly taken from Stavrianos. I don't understand what do you find so offensive on these edits, this is the 16th century we're talking about. You prefer to edit-war instead of accept another editor's opinion over yours. Anyway my question regarded the article's actual content. You must have realised by now what copyedits actually bother me, the ones that twist the meanings around. Furthermore you must realise that my opinion counts as much as yours, and when we don't agree then democratic procedures should apply, you can't just expect to win disputes by edit-warring, nor by masking reverts between successive edits. When no content-dispute is involved, I respect your edits and the way you have chosen to express yourself and I would expect you to do the same. So far you have never done this without starting an edit-war first, even for the slightest detail. I hope you realise that you're a difficult person to co-operate with. Miskin 01:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it was actually 2006 Britannica, but I restored your edit anyway. I don't agree with the use of "Stagnation Period" because I don't trust the editors in Ottoman Empire it's this title is most likely original research - so better stick to the numbers. I certainly don't agree with your edits at the end of the paragraph because I view them as POV-injections. I have provided the sourced and standard descriptions of Phanariotes, and it's one of the few things I would consider non-negotiable. I know your views on this subject and they are certainly not mainstream. Since we don't agree let's just stick to attested definitions. You have already tweaked Britannica's definition from the head's first line. The rest of the paragraph looks fine to me. Miskin 01:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to restore more of your edits that didn't involve POV-injections. Miskin 01:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think now? I restored all of your edits in the second sections, and the constructive ones in the first. Miskin 02:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No that was an accident. Miskin 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the style is fine now but feel free to copyedit anyway. If there's something I don't agree with I'll peacefully change it back. Laters. Miskin 02:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Paparrigopoulos refs were added by Yannismarou. Miskin 09:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

indentation

Hi,

I have no strong objections to the indentation process. It is just a fact of life that things can get very complicated sometimes. I have often used the practice of starting each of my indented coments with an arbitrary symbol such as §, but some people hate that so much that they have gone through and removed them. So you can't win. P0M 02:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion to contribute to Moldova pages

Thank you for your suggestion to contribute to Moldova pages, but I am comparing my contributions with the contributions of other skilled Wikipedians and I feel myself not competent enought to do good contributions. My laguage skills are not good enough, and my edits are somewhat biased.

I see that you are aware of the facts that I've pointed, could you please add them to wikipedia by yourself? Maxim Masiutin 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phanariotes

I've answered to your comment in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece and to the reference you made about me in Talk:Phanariotes. I just kindly ask you to keep a high level in this ensuing dialogue. I'll be straightforward towards you, because I really appreciate your contributions: I did not like some of implicit ironic comments you did for Miskin. They were not nice.--Yannismarou 20:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Emil

Nice subject line. :)

However, I find rather weird the fact that

1. . all teachers at all party schools, as well as all editors and adjunct editors at all publishing houses and newspapers are included and
2. . the propaganda secretary in the University of Bucharest is not included.

Seems pretty arbitrary, although I agree with you that he was probably not a "communist in the heart". This needs further investigation.

So, what law is this? Which legislature issued it? Dpotop 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on my talk page. Dpotop 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on my talk page. Dpotop 09:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Sorry for not getting back sooner, and in fact I will for now address only one of our ongoing topics because I have a lot going on currently.
I've made a very preliminary first attempt at the templates here, going through 1947. The issues I have are:
1. Technical problem: the brackets appear around the Radical Party.
2. Lots of red links. For now, I think I'd prefer de-linking them until we have articles.
3. Fitting some of the parties into categories, particularly the more obscure ones, and the ones that clearly might belong to two–the Ploughmen's Front, the German Party, etc. I will need help with this.
4. With reference to both the categories and individual parties, should they be in a particular order?
I put electoral alliances in italics and "important" (a vague term, I know) parties in bold. You're free to work within my sandbox to whatever extent you wish, until we come to a clearer consensus. Biruitorul 03:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, with two caveats:

1. Shouldn't it be "Communist, Socialist, and Social-Democratic"? Certainly, the PCR was not a socialist party, except in the sense that Communism is a form of socialism.

2. What about my idea of bolding a few parties? Maybe ones that supplied a prime minister, or maybe PNL, PC, PNŢ, PCR, Iron Guard. I don't know if these fit a 100% objective criterion, but it might be good to subtly indicate to a reader, "The PNL actually mattered. The Free and Independent Faction, not so much." Biruitorul 19:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good; I went ahead and created it here. I suppose one more issue would be: do we put in a note explaining that the PNL was revived, or is that self-explanatory? (Yes, they do go at the bottom. My mistake.) Biruitorul 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this will be quite helpful, I think. Thank you for assisting me. I'll put in a note on the board inviting others to have a look. Biruitorul 21:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to translate from Portuguese, which I don't know very well. Currently it's mostly a machine translation. When I have the motivation, I'll go back to the Portuguese original and fine-tune it. If you're so inclined, by all means give me a hand with it. Biruitorul 21:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess some enterprising Lusophone decided to do it. Anyway, the German version really puts ours to shame. In fact, there is an appreciable number of FAs on other Wikipedias, especially fr and de, which have no article at all in English. Examples would include this one, this one, etc. Probably this too would have remained thus had I not translated it.

I'm looking forward to the PCR changes and the 1946 piece, and certainly to the prosepct of Anonimu calming down. And yes, sometime in the future (2037? I wonder how Wikipedia will look then.) I will be quite glad to assist with your planned projects. Biruitorul 04:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinople etc.

Hi, I'm currently preparing a rewriting and restructuring of the Names of Istanbul article. You are right, we should clarify the thing about the alleged "renaming", and a few others too. If you could help finding good sources that would be great. I have clear primary-sources evidence that "Istanbul" was used by the Ottoman authorities prior to 1930, but I'd prefer to see secondary reliable sources for it. That the name existed all the time is of course pretty obvious, but we need good references. We need information about when "Istanbul" is first attested in Ottoman, about when "Istanbul" or "Stamboul" began to be used in the West side by side with "Constantinople", about "Islambol", about "Dersaadet", about when "Kostantiniyye" was coined, and its correct forms in Arabic, Persian and Ottoman... Lots of work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3R violation

You are reported by NicoSilver for violation of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I agree with this movement and I've commented on that. I agree with this report; my only objection is that we were too late to report you. The link stays, you like it or not. Since Constantinople article says and citates that this was the official name of the city until 1930, the link stays for obvious reasons. Your arguments are rejected by me, Miskin and Nicosilver. If you can't accept that you are in the minority in this particular subject, this is your problem. And I'm not negotiating that. End of the discussion! If you don't like it call for a vote in Talk:Phanariotes.

Oh! And by the way take a look at WP:OWN. Cheers!--Yannismarou 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 15 2006 to Phanariotes

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 13:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. :-( If you want to feel better check out my block log. I've left some comments at Talk:Phanariotes. —Khoikhoi 18:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very unfortunate. I urge Dahn to be unblocked. Actually, the matter is so trivial that I'm suprised at the amount of revert-warring it spurred. Dahn, when you return back to editing, please check Olshanski. There is a red link that needs fixing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article, I announced it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles. I think the matter really did not deserve revert warring about it. If you see that your enemies are multiple and you are alone, it's not worth it. You can't fight a tsunami, can you? I'm sure there are many Romanian editors who would help, if the conflict was that fundamental (but it was not). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an enemy of Dahn and I only try to serve historical truth. I we'll all do the same thing from now on.--Yannismarou 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 17:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavia

Sorry to hear about your block, but it looks like you're bouncing right back into action. Great article on Iliaş; I've done one on his brother. If you could make sure the details correspond in both, that would be appreciated. Biruitorul 15:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the PPCD gets back to me, I will let you know. Meanwhile, there's a rollicking debate here; join the fun!

A couple more notice board-related themes: what do you think of having the 1907 revolt as an FA? Personally, I have some material on it, but perhaps you've got some more. Anyway, we have until March till the centenary.

See also the thing on territorial divisions. The template map issue is particularly problematic. I found out that as of the 1890s, there were 32 judeţe in Romania, and I have their names, but I don't know if that lasted all the way from 1859/66 to 1918. Also, I don't know how Romania was divided between 1918 and 1927 (I think that's when the new judeţe were finalised), though I suspect things were rather chaotic in 1918-20 or so.

I know I have some unfinished business with you; let me address one of those items. Unfortunately the actual text of the lustration law, as opposed to press summaries, remains elusive, so I don't know what that mysterious "etc." stands for. I think it's safest to mention his communist activity in his biography (as I did) without putting him in that category, for now.

Some of this guy's recent edits on the Ceauşescus seems suspect; please have a look. Biruitorul 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly interesting edit from an "enemy" editor!

I see Ghirla calls me as an enemy of yours! Interesting! I kindly ask you to take a look at Talk:Phanariotes#"Predominantly". I expose Paparhegopulus' analysis. I don't comment on his conclusions. Cheers!--Yannismarou 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On October 20, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iliaş of Moldavia, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links on Transylvania page

Dear Dahn, I notice some problems with the external links on the Transylvania page. The first link called 'Transylvania Tourism" leads to the Transylvanian Webcatalogue in Hungarian language, little to do with Transylvanian Tourism. The next one is called 'cycling in Transylvania' which is very nice, but not only it hasn't been updated since 2001, it also represents a biking holiday company.

I myself tried to add our link www.transylvaniancastle.com as I believe it could be of general interest to those who want to know more about genuine Transylvania, but the link got immediately erased as spam. Who decides on which links can be accepted and which not? I genuinely believe our site can be of general interest to those wishing to know more about Transylvania, (not only those interested in our touristical offer) and I would be happy if its link would be accepted. You can also contact me here: [e-mail]

Best wishes Count Tibor Kalnoky

Rigas Feraios

Vlach is an exonym; that is, the name non-Vlachs use when referring to these Latinised peoples. Aromanian etc is used by these peoples between themselves. I believe Vlach is more appropriate for R.F. Sshadow 18:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlach is the English term used for the Latinised peoples living outside Romania. Maybe the Vlach and the various Aromanian articles should be merged to Vlach? Sshadow 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose using "of Vlach (Aromanian) ancestry" (linking to Vlach). It seems like the middle way to me. Sshadow 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, N. Djuvara is biased on this particular matter just because he is Romanian. Why are you suprised? I think you are familiar with nationalism. Sshadow 20:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought that Rigas' article would be a matter of conflict... I've talked to Sshadow (also in greek), and i hope he has understood... I know that Rigas was an Aromanian, cause i happen to have my origins in the same village with him... I do not mean Velestino, but the village of his parents, of his maternal and paternal origins (if u care so much, search to find it out:p)...:). we are not discussing the origin of the Aromanians in that article, are we? so, the fact that he was an aromanian can remain... any further pov concerning his ethnic affiliation or any idea that the aromanians are not greeks will find me in the opposing side... Regards. PS: i have no idea what happened in that article... i got confused seeing 2 biografies and dublicated info... i apologise for reverting u, i have no idea of what happened... Hectorian 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]