User talk:Dahn/Archive 27

Puttees

Dunno about puttees, Soviet soldiers had worn them too (Russian ones still do, AFAIK)...

The poster reads: "Remember (about) Bessarabia!"
"In the 10 years of the bloody occupation of Bessarabia (a list of unspeakable evil deeds most certainly follows)"
(vertical) "Hands of Romanian invaders away from Bessarabia!" (the sentence is a bit malformed in Russian, it either addresses the Romanian invaders ("get your hands off!") or someone else who should do it ("let's get their hands off...!"))
The star below probably lists the MASSR achievements in the same 10 years.

PS: Note the swastika.

On Goma: no need for translations that was sufficient. What's the other controvercy? The commission on Communism? --Illythr 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puttees: They were (and probably still are) standard issue in the Soviet (Russian) army. At that time, they were standard for all the world's armies, I'd wager.

Swastika: Well, MASSR was founded in 1924. +10 years makes the poster's year 1934...

Commission: But they did condemn Communism... Why were the far rightists unhappy? --Illythr 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Nasi

Thank you for getting in touch. The note I made and subsequently incorporated didnt have full details; I intended to put in the other details later. Anyway here is the complete reference: The Venetian Empire, by Jan Morris; Penguin Books; London, 1980. I originally had the hardback, but in the paperback edition it seems the relevant page is 102. There is an interesting amount of information about Nasi as a rival of Venice in the Aegean; remarkably, the treaty between Venice and the Ottoman Empire that confirmed the cession of Cyprus to the Turks was signed by one of his associates, also Jewish. Hornplease 11:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culianu & mysticism

Salut! Culianu avait l'air d'être un personnage intéressant... pas grand chose à voir - quoique...-, mais tu connais Alejandro Jodorowsky? En tout cas, "democatholic" semble être un néologisme, en français ça fait bizarre, on dirait plutôt démocrate chrétien, "démocrate catho" ça fait étrange (voire même oxymorique ! - on a plutôt tendance à dire "réac catho" !) Si c'est effectivement en référence au contexte français (probablement d'un point de vue extérieur) ça peut vouloir indiquer le ralliement d'une partie des catholiques à la Troisième République vers 1900, sur les traces d'Adolphe Thiers et autres Orléanistes. Grosso modo les cathos votent à droite, et la droite a longtemps été anti-républicaine, comme tu le sais... Quoi qu'il en soit, l'inventeur du terme "democatho" a probablement voulu souligner le fait qu'il ne s'agissait pas de protestants ou d'orthodoxes, et cela n'a guère de sens en France, où le vote protestant & autres (si ça existe encore) est plutôt à gauche — c'est comme cet usage anglais d'écrire "Roman Catholic Church" au lieu de simplement "Catholic Church" ou même "Church" tout court. Sinon, il y a l'air d'avoir une tendance confirmée en Roumanie de spiritualisme et de mysticisme que je ne connaissais pas, ça tend à valider une partie des thèses de Zeev Sternhell qui n'a pas hésité à traiter le personnalisme d'Emmanuel Mounier comme précurseur du fascisme, bien que cela s'apparente en réalité bien plus à un existentialisme ou/et humanisme chrétien, pas très différent à vrai dire ni de Alain ni de Sartre (du premier Sartre en tout cas). Un mélange de cette tradition de l'occulte avec les thèses racialistes d'un Xenopol donnent en effet le cocktail du nazisme, positivisme + spiritualisme, vraiment étrange... Je ne sais pas si l'Huma exagère toujours autant, mais lire leurs articles pendant la Révolution roumaine doit être quelque chose - mais cela vaut pour l'ensemble de la représentation médiatique de cet événement, malheureusement... Il est clair que ces règlements d'appart sur la Côte d'azur n'étaient officiellement pas appliqué, prétexte paradoxal de leur maintien. Dans un autre registre, on vient de s'apercevoir qu'une loi datant de Napoléon interdisait aux femmes le port du pantalon ! Connaissant, néanmoins, les pratiques de discrimination raciale en vigueur dans diverses agences d'immobilier, ainsi que la popularité des thèses racistes dans le sud, je n'assurerai pas qu'ils n'étaient vraiment jamais appliqué, ces fameux règlements vichystes... A + ! Tazmaniacs

Quick request

Hello - could you, when you have a moment, take a look at Iosif Chişinevschi? I had a question on the talk page, which I tried to answer in footnote 1, but perhaps you can confirm or modify my explanation. Biruitorul 12:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VT on p. 159 of the English edition does say, "Chişinevschi had personal connections in the Soviet secret police, as an agent of which he infiltrated upper ranks of the Romanian communist hierarchy." However, do take your time - it's not urgent.

Yes, very disruptive and should be reverted on sight. If you're facing 3RR issues, let me know and I'll help. Anyway, I suspect some of these individuals are due for banishment from here. Biruitorul 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Church Slavonic

I think I remember you suggesting such a Wikipedia with pre-1917 reform rules before... Well, there it is! :-D --Illythr 14:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awwww... :'-( --Illythr 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valter Roman

Hi, I've decided not to block you for breaching our Three revert rule policy today, instead preferring to protect the page whilst you and Icar (along with all other interested users) come to an agreement over the content, preferably by using the articles talk page. If you persist in reverting more than 3 times in any 24 hour period following this warning, I will have no hesitation in blocking you in future. -- Nick ^t 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help you both, if you want to.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I was away while protection occurred. Cine pleacă la plimbare, pierde locul de onoare, at least temporarily. Biruitorul 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Biruitorul 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to let your ego be punctured once in a while. Most of us, after several years and tens of thousands of edits, start to put a lot of our egos into our work here, more than we originally either intended or anticipated. While it's natural for this to happen, the unintended consequences include feelings of ownership over one's contributions and a quickness to react in poor faith, and even with arrogance. Someone reverted your edits with a sarcastic edit summary? Let it go. Someone called you a bad name somewhere? Don't retaliate. Let it go. While it hurts at first to let these things go, being able to do so is the true test of strength and maturity. You only gain in the long run. Retaliating not only brings you discredit, but it increases your anger, and corresponding risk of over-reaction, as the number of related provocations rises. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not having this conversation, HIZKIAH. You have simply reverted several articles to vandalized versions, so all of this coaching is out of place. Dahn 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's worst enemies are those whose vanity has been wounded. They may be moderately notable people, such as Daniel Brandt, who failed to control the article on himself; or they may be people who worked hard on an article which was deleted by the community; or they may be people who attempted to push a POV which was rejected by the community. Usually they invoke a higher moral principle in support of their campaign against the project, such as censorship, free speech, conspiracy against them, or whatnot, as their own vanity prevents them from recognizing that vanity itself is the source of their displeasure. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: none of that has any relevancy to a situation where somebody erases scholarly sources on they basis that they "have been used to much". You may continue to talk about ego and whatnot, but that weighs nothing on this very simple issue. Dahn 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you an Adaptive behavior which is a type of behavior that is used to adapt to another type of behavior or situation. This is often characterised by a behavior that allows an individual to substitute an unconstructive or disruptive behavior to something more constructive. These behaviors are most often social or personal behaviors. For example a constant repetitive action could be re-focused on something that creates or builds something. In other words the behavior can be adapted to something else. I try to help you, if I fail ...I hope not. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not answer to straw men. I see no relevancy for this type of messages on my talk page, so if you continue to discuss my psychology or whatnot, I will simply remove your future posts from this page. Dahn 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racovschi

Firstly, I will look for that image and scan it. It can be found in Trotskys Balkan War correspondence. Secondly, I have his work "Republica Federativa Balcanica" in Romanian lying around somewhere as a collection of images photographed of a photocopy. If you want these I'll render them to you aswell (I am about half way through translating it into English).

About the anti-Semitic stuff, it is quite sad. There isn't much that can be done but wait and hope more fair minded users turn up. Although, scandal has in the past served to bring other Wikipedias more in line. I believe they had a significant problem on the Serbian Wikipedia and Jimbo intervened. But I don't remember the exact details. If you come across any other articles let me know. - Francis Tyers · 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike!

(By the way, the Hizkiah episode was funny - I was going to ask him, "Who are you?", but I guess we now know.) (Oh, and thank you for the Tâmpa expansion.)
After doing the piece on the Lupeni strike, I think I've stumbled on an interesting, largely untapped (within Wikipedia) vein of Romanian history - the workers' movement. I'll use this message to try and propose the contours for an eventual series of articles on the subject.
I think an overall article called "History of the Romanian labour movement", or something on those lines would not be amiss. We can cover some of the smaller strikes there, like the many that happened in the 1880s-'90s, or in the 1920s in the Jiu Valley (actually the latter is always going on strike). And of course speak of PSDR and later PCR involvement. As to individual strikes we may want to include, I've found references to Galaţi, June 1907 and a general strike in 1910, but they're quite vague. Then there was the 1916 Galaţi strike involving Rakovsky.
For the post-WWI period, we should definitely write about:
1. The 1918-1920 labour unrest, culminating in the October 20-28, 1920 general strike.
2. The 1929-33 wave of unrest - strikes, demonstrations, revolts (Tismăneanu touches on it near the end of Chapter 2) - perhaps we could title it "Romania in the Great Depression".
2½. The Griviţa strike article needs eventual expansion (it doesn't mention, for instance, Vasile Roaită).
3. Not a strike in the classic sense, but the 1946 Cluj and Timişoara student strike/ethnic tension merits an article or two.
4. And of course, Jiu 1977.

That's at least five articles in there, so this is a longer-term undertaking. But does the general idea strike (ha!) you as a sound one? Biruitorul 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you say is right on the mark, so I look forward to getting things off the ground whenever more pressing projects are finished. Indeed, even on the 1920 general strike I've only found a few scraps (though I'm sure there's more out there), so putting it in as a section in the larger article (which has FA potential) is not a problem.

The only point I'd take mild issue with is the Depression. Of course, we do need to straighten out the Old Kingdom/Kingdom/Greater Romania articles. However, there is a strong precedent for separate articles. It's not a crucial point, but something to ponder.

And yes, we can always experiment first by sandboxing. Biruitorul 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - slow and steady. As for the English variant, let's just stay with whatever one we start out with. I have no trouble writing in either. Biruitorul 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's where I read about the earlier strikes. Overall, not a bad article. Biruitorul 23:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great minds do think alike, but I must confess I'm not great at creating "big picture" articles, preferring more specific subjects like events and people. So I'll leave it to you to create, and add in more material as appropriate, whenever you're ready. If you will, I'm the Stalin to your Lenin, or perhaps the Sima to your Codreanu - a less imaginative, more bureaucratic follower of the man with the Big Ideas. But in the end, Stalin had a relatively good life (though presumably the afterlife is proving more painful for him), not to mention Sima, who spent a good four decades frittering away his days in sunny Spain.
Anyway, what do we call the Cluj '46 article? 1946 Cluj student strike? There's an OK article on Timişoara here, but I've found less on Cluj. Biruitorul 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HIZKIAH

No problem. BTW, perhaps you could check something out for me. On the Târnăveni article, there's a dispute over a certain sentence, and the use of Hungarian over Romanian for the names of the Hungarian counties. I've explained my reverts here, and there's also an explanation from another user here. However, Olario left some message to Orioane in Romanian on his talk page, and although I don't know exactly what he's saying, I did notice the sentence, "cum si el zice si si noi stim limba latina o fost pana tarziu limba oficiala in ungaria deci sa zici ca limba oficiala era maghiara si de aia le ziceau asa la orase ii absurd." Perhaps you could leave a comment on his talk page or at least tell me how to solve this issue. I noticed that the article contradicts itself right now. While it says in the history section, "From its founding until its incorporation into Romania with the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, the town formed part of Hungary or an independent Transylvania", the article then goes on to say, "In 1502, the place was mentioned as a borough (oppidum), as a part of Cetatea de Baltă fields, owned in the 15th-16th centuries by Moldavian rulers Stephen the Great, Petru Rareş and others." Which one is correct? Khoikhoi 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 15 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Proclamation of Timişoara, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing articles: 1848 Wallachian revolution, etc

Hi, I was looking at red links, and wonder if you can tell me what happened to articles like 1848 Wallachian revolution and Wallachian Army. There are lots of incoming links ("what links here") to those missing articles, but there is no record of them being deleted in the Logs. As you've been an editor of Regulamentul Organic I thought you might know whether those articles ever existed. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see. Perhaps you might consider creating stub articles in the meantime, with a couple of lines of text and some categories. This has two advantages: (i) it's just possible that somebody else might add material while you're not getting round to it; (ii) as long as things stay as they are, the red links are in danger of being deleted. HTH! - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]