|
User talk:Dahn/Archive 26Lost referenceFixing. -- Leandro GFC Dutra 14:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Featured article
Congrats. Impressive. `'mikka 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Warning against vandalismIn the article Vladimir Tismăneanu you made several edits, removing links, sourced information and manipulating a citation. If you did this by inadvertence, please reconsider the way you are editing in order to avoid such incidents in the future. If you did this intentionally, please understand that deleting referenced information or manipulating quotation is considered wp:vandalism. I am forced to warn that in case of continuing this behaviour you may be blocked from editing wikipedia.--Vintila Barbu 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Please interveneHi, sorry for my late reply; I've been sort of busy lately. Basically, I don't think people need to get consensus to add dispute tags. If they personally dispute the article, and there's a dispute about that on the talk page, then they can add the tags. If he has not answered your comments on the talk page, wait a bit longer. I guess you could ask another admin for advice as well. BTW, there appears to be an edit war on that page. Do you want me to protect it? Khoikhoi 15:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
RugăminteUn user proaspăt a "inventat" o nouă limbă (Moeso-Romanian language). Eu stau cam prost cu engleza, altfel m-aş fi ocupat eu de articol (eu sunt mai activ în wikipedia germana). Acest articol descrie graiurile româneşti ca pe o limba distinctă, fără să aducă vreun argument. De fapt, despre româna timoceană există deja un articol (vezi aici:Vlach language (Serbia)). Autorul (care nu are la activ decât 2 articole a avut grija sa menţioneze această limbă (cică diferită de cea română) şi în acest articol ca fiind una separată de cea română). Populatia romanică din fostul spatiu iugoslav menţionată de Pavle Ivić este cea a morlacilor (vezi şi harta, dar şi menţiunea lui Pavle Ivić de aici) şi nu trebuie confundată cu vlahii daco-români din estul Serbiei sau cu romanii bănăţeni. Singurii urmaşi a populaţiei de morlaci sunt istroromânii, a căror limbă trădează intr-adevăr origini bănătene, timocene sau cel mai probabil ardelene. Poţi, te rog, să vezi ce e de făcut? Mersi anticipat. --Olahus 12:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC) May be coming up for a VfD again - check the Talk page. You commented last time, so I thought I'd mention it. - DavidWBrooks 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Hello! I've written you in the past, I'm just hoping you remember me... I'm sorry to bother you, but I would have liked to add this info: http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dumitru_Prunariu&diff=804849&oldid=739058 in the corresponding English article. Unfortunately, I don't quite know how to say that in English (trecere in rezerva). Maybe you can help me out here? Thanks a lot! --Vlad|-> 13:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Back in actionThank you for your kind words; it's great to have you back. I hope you've steeled yourself for more abuse, as it seems to come with the territory. I've said in the past that no one is indispensible, but you come very close indeed. Getae is suffering, by the way. I know this won't actually get implemented, but, as a theoretical matter, what do you think of my suggestions here?: 1. Ban the IP editors. Yes, some of these contribute worthy material, and I have some sympathy for them, having been an IP editor myself for two and a half years, but registration takes five seconds, so there’s no excuse not to do it. Taking this step would eliminate a lot of vandalism. 2. Require a four-day waiting period for new users to create articles. Again, most nonsense/spam pages are created by freshly-registered users. Having someone wait four days is not a great burden and again this would eliminate much vandalism. These two steps combined would eliminate a great deal of pure vandalism. It would not get rid of POV pushers or trolls, against whom vigilance would still be needed, but our work would be greatly simplified. I know that there’s something nice about an encyclopedia that “anyone can edit”, but one, “anyone with an account” is still, for all intents and purposes, “anyone”, and two, the Internet’s early, anarchic days were fun, but they’re long over. We’re getting bombarded with vandalism and spam from all sides; we need to pull up the drawbridge and batten up the hatches, not extend an open invitation to the sacking marauders. Did you happen to see my article on the UTC? In case you have more material on it, these are the areas I'd like to see expanded:
I'd say the first point is the most important and most in need of more details. Biruitorul 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Thank youHey Dahn. If you would like to tell me who these people were, feel free to send me an email. Was it Daos? Perhaps "our friend"? If that was who it was, check out this and this. Feel better now? Thanks for your kind words, I don't think I've ever heard someone describe my actions as "majestic" before. :-) There's no need to apologize about Tismăneanu—if I had minded I would've let you know. The only thing I couldn't have done was revert to your version, then protect the page. That would be considered inappropriate. Anyways, I'm glad you're back. Feel free to leave note on my talk page for any future requests. Boogie Dahn, Khoikhoi 10:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideological articles...Hi Dahn! Please take a second to see what's going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation, I think it's quite important. Thanks! Tazmaniacs 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC) An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Emil Calmanovici, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC) DAN!Suna-ma imediat pe mobil, sau suna la Irina acasa, nu raspunzi la telefon, nu stiu cum altfel sa dau de tine. Petru | 24 feb, 22.25 I have given AdrianTM an official warning, on the other hand browsing through Talk:Alexandru Nicolschi I could not help but notice that the talk became personal before the AdrianTM's profanity. Please next time avoid discussing personal traits of editors on the articles talkpages. Rather discuss the articles and ignore mild personal attacks. Thanks Alex Bakharev 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) ChronologyHi, Dahn. There's a certain chronology that I'd like you to help me sort out, as it's currently a bit of a mess. As I understand it, This is mostly from the ro.wiki biography of Antonescu, and I made an edit to his en.wiki biography to try and clear up some of the confusion. Still, if you look at Ion Antonescu, National Legionary State, and Iron Guard, there are some important discrepancies. (For instance, we say the National Legionary State began on September 6; I don't think this was the case.) If you could, when you have time, look over this chronology so I can try to smooth over the differences, I would appreciate that. On a somewhat related theme, would it be worth having an article called "Iron Guard death squads"? I know of three: the Nicadori (Duca), Decemviri (Stelescu), and Răzbunători (Călinescu). Were there more? If not, this might be worth doing. Also a full article on the November 26/7, 1940 massacre at Jilava. Biruitorul 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) ResistantsSalam alekum! Dis-moi, tu voudras peut-être jeter un coup d'œil sur Olga Bancic quand tu auras une seconde, et éventuellement ajouter des infos depuis ro:Olga Bancic. L'Affiche rouge et l'exécution du groupe Manouchian au Mont Valérien fait parler d'elle-même en ce moment, après que Stéphane Courtois ait accusé le PCF de les avoir trahi. Deux points de vue différents: [1], [2]... A propos de la dite "civilisation européenne" et de ses "batailles macrohistoriques", je crains bien qu'il va falloir s'intéresser à l'article de plus près. J'avais pas idée non plus de l' "importance" qu'avait pris la Category:Race and intelligence controversy, avec des articles tels que "Ashkenazi intelligence" et des images telles que [3]... D'ailleurs, tu seras peut-être intéressé par History of far-right movements in France, c'est une bonne série à commencer... Tazmaniacs 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"Pătrăşcanu la putere"Here's another tidbit from p. 135 of Levy (whose book, available on Google Books, is quite valuable and should eventually be used to expand our article on Pauker, currently a little thin): The party’s main contact with King Michael and other political figures before the August 23 coup, and a minister in the Sanatescu government immediately after, Patrascanu was widely considered the RCP’s real leader at the time. It was Patrascanu’s name that was called out at the party’s first public rally after the coup, and “Patrascanu to power” was the slogan chanted at Communist rallies and meetings throughout September and October. But he quickly became the odd man out of the RCP leadership. Both the Dej and Pauker factions snubbed him equally, excluding him from the provisional secretariat that replaced the Foris leadership in April 1944 as well as from the five-person Central Committee set up soon after Pauker’s arrival in the country. Our article on him does give the sense that he was popular, but I think this drives home the point. I also did a search for the slogan, and the result, which mentions it under October 8, 1944, seems quite interesting, but is in Hungarian (I'm sure we could ask for a translation, though). Biruitorul 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Greetings. You appear to be engaged in an edit war on this page with another user, who has asked several times that you provide alternate or more accurate sources for information you have added to the article. While I understand that you believe your information to be accurate, repeatedly adding the same controversial material to a page can be considered vandalism. Furthermore, you have at least once removed an Original Research tag from the article which was added as a result of the questionable sources. Since you have already been blocked for a 3RR violation, this will likely be the only warning I post before I add the incident to WP:AIV. If you believe I am misinterpreting your actions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks for your understanding, --Moralis 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Tee-heeYour ears getting warm yet? :-) --Illythr 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Valter RomanWe win. :) That's the whole point. Dpotop 11:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) OpreaCheck out the new article: Marius Oprea. Khoikhoi 04:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC) GomaThank you! I will give it a look soon. Meanwhile, a few quick points: Have you ever been a bit frustrated by WP:V? It happened to me recently when I learned the "true" story of the church in Scorniceşti. The variant we give, based on a published source, is that Ceauşescu ordered its construction. The "true" story is as follows: at the time, Scorniceşti was being refurbished: new houses, school, equipment, etc. The local priest took advantage of this, claiming that Ceauşescu had asked him to build a church, and thus obtained wood, paint, and whatever else he needed. When the works were done, the local First Secretary called Ceauşescu and said, "We've finished the houses, the school, the church, the..." At which point Ceauşescu interrupted: "What church??" He didn't demolish it, but didn't order its construction either. Alas, we'll have to wait for this to be published. I also learned that Petre Roman - oddly enough, given his background, is Orthodox, something which is at least somewhat verifiable, so we could add a category. Not to open up the whole citizenship/nationality debate again, but in the Rakovsky article, you refer to Koestler as being British. The later Koestler, yes, but does it matter that, at the time Darkness at Noon was published in 1940, he wasn't especially British? To use an analogy, would we refer to the young Einstein as an "American physicist"? Probably not, as he wasn't a US citizen until later in life. One point about Cetatea Albă: from 1940-41, and from 1944 on, it was in the UkSSR. As it was never in the MSSR, I don't quite see the need for a "Moldovan alphabet" equivalent. Was this in fact ever used to describe the city? Biruitorul 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Re:Some interesting stuff about PiłsudskiThank you for the info. For now, may I suggest crossposting this to article's talk page? I am not sure if this belongs in the main article, but eventually we will get more detailed subarticles about his biography and it will belong to them surely.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC) HiHello and thank you for expressing your point of view (about the Khoikhoi controversy). I was intrigued about one of your posts in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARomanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=113298853&oldid=113298217 You say: ":If you want questionable stuff on rowiki, here's some tidbits for you: my IP on rowiki was vandalized by Bonaparte with full knowledge from an admin there, who simply told him not to be so obvious about what he is doing (!) - it remained so until I called on another admin to intervene; a user who was banned over here was allowed to post racist material until he left the project out of his own will (he had been banned for months on enwiki); I remember a user complaining that he had been banned on rowiki by some admin who decided that he was "vandalizing" when he deleted references to Horthy as "a fascist", simply because he did not find them backed by scholarly sources (and they are not). Seeing this, I question the credibility of rowiki over that of its individual users." I remember reverting some of the Bonaparte doings (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dahn&diff=prev&oldid=79024347) but I don't remember you asking me (or did you ask somebody else?) And unfortunately Irismeister has come back to ro.wiki with his antisemit propaganda. One last thing, do you remember who complained about being banned at ro.wiki (as AFAIK there is no one banned over there?) Thank you! --Vlad|-> 13:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A couple issuesOld stuff
It is your right and privelege to consider them as you wish. I consider what you did insulting, but not towards me (I do not take things personally in a dispute by issue, apparently unlike you), towards Molovans as community. I don't think that words that normal people do not use to describe groups of people, when taken in some context, can have different meaning. I split your sentences because that was the practice I learned from conversations with Irpen. At that time I was actively editting on wikipedia for just a couple weeks. I think I expressed very clearly at the time that there was nothing intentional in it. I think the fact that I am not splitting them now shows that I took note of your itchiness in this regard. I can not be held responsible for the oppinions of another user about you. Just like a company can not demand business reparations from a citizen for critisizing, motivating that the critics have led to decrese in the company's business. I did not attack you persnally (I would have been blocked on the spot), I questioned your stand on an issue that I considered of importance, because that stand in my oppinion came with unacceptable language. I do not completely understand the word trolling, and I think there is a wikipedia recomendation to use less this word, as diff people understand diff things. If you think that I have in the dispute on the issue attacked you personally (i am not aware of that but I am not God, so I do not exclude anything a priori), I appologize for that. But my demands for explanation of the appropriateness of the particular characterisations stand, as they refered to your description of a community, not me. Whether you consider with sense or senseless to give such explanations remains your prerogative and consienceness. The best "satisfaction" that I can receive is if you turn to a wall and repeat those words, and then answer for yourself (in your mind) whether they are appropriate or not. As it was not an idea that I promotted, but the way I understood things from talking at the time you, there is nothing to promote. :Dc76 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC) New stuff
By The people who were bringing to light the horrors of Nazi Germany were also characterized by "a large number of authoritative historians and political scientists have considered ... to be ... spurious". I mean that when people bring to light nowadays the horrors of Communism and communists, and are dismissed as being non-autoritive, negationist, spurious, anti-semitic, etc, I think that is wrong. I am sufficiently intelligent (I bieleve) to discern anti-communism from anti-semitism. Goma is not the only one blamed for fascist sympathies because some (even if many, doesn't matter) communists happened to be Jews. And my main argument is that, while around 300,000 Jews were in Bessarabia in the wake of 28 June 1940, there were only 2,000 to 4,000 members of communist organizations, plus perhaps a number not exceeding 10,000 who participated in the crownd in violences during those days. Even if the majority of the rest (290,000) would have some sympathies, as they did not express them in any violent way, the blames on them for actions of some which happen to be of their ethnic group, are simply wrong and malicious. 10,000, including 2,000 fanatics can do a lot of dammage. In Chsinau there were around 500, inlc perhaps 100 organizers, and what damage was done! Sorry if you think I took offence, I did not. I actually totally forgot what was that about. I do not agree with Goma on many issues, but I will only metion two. 1) I do not think that the "reply" to "Romanians have to pay for killing that many Jews" should be "Jews have to pay for killing that many Romanians". In the instances referred, it was communists who killed Romanians, and fascists who killed Jews. 2) When he mentiones more recent events, e.g. War in Lebanon, I barely abstained to find his email and write him. I do not think the book can be dismissed as such. First, it does not claim neither to be a history treat, not a witness account, he calls it eseu, so we shouldn't demand from it standards it does not claim. Second, it is more than obvious to see that what the book contains is extensive citations and his oppinions. I would like to exeplify the way I see fit to use his book as a sourse: I took from there the names of the members of Carol II's council, and their votes. Then I searched to confirm them, and I found some "inexactedness". He says "only 6 out of 26 [or 27, don't remember] votted against", which I interpretted as 21 voted for. But in other sourses I found that 1 abstained, and that 1 (min of health) seems to have been against, but expressed it so unclear that some thought it was yes, some thout it was no. Hence some sourses say 7/19/1. Also Carol II brought in Vaida during the night, swore him as minister, and put him sigh the recommendation as well, despite the fact that he did not take part in deliberations (at least it seems to me from what I read). None of the sourses except Goma has the complete list of the members, all I found (I am not in Romania or Moldova at the moment) was partial lists that helped me verify. The second reading of Goma's "only 6 out of 26 [or 27] votted against" is accurate, but that's a different type of acurrate than 6/21. And I intend to use the book for such things in the future. In all cases, he actually says what book/sourses are the exerpts from, and in many of them it is possible to find those books and sourses on intenet, in libraries, in bookstores. If I copy 2 sentences from a witness account which is reproduced in Goma's book, I don't think that's objectionable, since I have to give as sourse the witness account, not Goma. I will, of course verify it later (as soon as I find the sourse). In case I ever find an inexact copying by Goma, be sure I am going to say that very loud. Goma has, however, a name of a honest person. Very oppinionated, but honest. So, until proven with facts, I can not dismiss the authority of the biggest dissident Romania had.:Dc76 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC) As for the Jewish state, I don't know why these things are not known in Romania, there were very well known in USSR. Or at least, I knew them. Jews have always persuaded Stalin to create a republic for them somewhere. That is not an a priori bad thing. During 1930s and 1940s, up until 2 events occured in 1948: 1) creation of Israel 2) assasination by NKVD-MGB of several Jewish lidears in USSR, incl (I don;t remember for the moment his name) the community leader, who was the director of the Jewish theatre in Minsk. He knew very much, including details of negociatins between Beria's agents and Oppenheimer, Fermi, Einstein, Hans Bethe etc. (only Oppenheimer agreed to "help" in the sense Beria wanted) One of the key arguments was the possible creation of a Jewish state (republic, not independent) somewhere in USSR (preferably Crimeea). He became more insistent after WWII (apparently Stalin has actually promissed), and paid with his life. The antisemits in USSR were saying the Jews were demanding very much: (this was before 1940) Podolia, Transnistria, including Odessa, Tauridia, Crimea, and even possibly some parts of Belorussia. Galicia and Bessarabia came as an additon only later. The Jews actually represented between 30 and 50% of urban population of all these areas, so the demands of some statehood were not groundless. In reality noone ever hoped for all these areas, they only wanted some area, and then by gradual migration to create a majority there. Stalin used this desire for some statehood to the maximum, and never gave anything in return. Moreover, in denigration, around 1950 he created the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Far East, where only ever since the first secretary of the party was Jew, all the rest were Russians. The biggest chances for a Jewsish Soviet Sovialist Republic had Crimea. There was lots of talk about that in 1945-1948. But then Stalin theought that he was being demanded too much retaliated by killing jewish leaders. Creation of a Jewish republic somewhere in USSR, for example on some territoty in Crimea would not have been necessarily perceived as bad by the vast majority of population. After all there were millions or Jews in USSR, they did not have any national territory, and Russians were in Crimea only somewhat recent arrivals. As the Tatars have been deported, Jews in Crimea would not have had less legitimacy than Russians. Especially considering the roots to Khasars, which of course do not speak of numbers, but at least speak of precedence. The refusal was based on strategic reasons. Stalin realised that a Jewish republic would be more open to the west and democracy, and also Crimeea became very strategic after WWII. The process of Jewish doctors in early 1953, etc. for example were part of Stalin's efforts to close once and for all the desire of Jews to demand something. Whether the particular people in those processes had any blame or everything was invented, only God knows. But that they were political means for Stalin - everyone knows.:Dc76 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Panait IstratiHi and sorry for this. I did not notice that you had reverted before I did. In any case, that IP belongs to a notorious vandal User:Bonaparte, and the insults he introduces and has introduced in edit summaries and talk pages probably make the fact that he also vandalizes less relevant. I will contact an admin to get him blocked. Thanks for your vigilance, btw. Dahn 12:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
|
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AverageIQ-Map-World.png){kind=link}
