User talk:Dahn/Archive 38

Edit summaries

Just FYI, you have a reply at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Biruitorul_2#Edit_summaries. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sfarmă-Piatră

On 18 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sfarmă-Piatră, 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.

Gimmetrow 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI Dahn how are things? You speak Romanian from what I recall right? Could you expand Grigore Alexandrescu a bit. I've been starting a few Romanian poet articles such as Ruxandra Cesereanu etc. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats beautiful excellent work!!! I am rather fond of the eastern european artists and writers, Romanians included. Cesereanu looks rather like an aunt of mine who also is a poet and a painter. I began adding some Romanian poets. What I'll be doing is gradually going through the biographies in the categories on Romanian wiki and try to stub them into english hoping that somebody can expand them like you did above. So expect to see some stubs on romanian writer, painters, architects etc appearing over the next few weeks. One of the most important things we can do is to look what we already have on other wikipedias and covert to english. Your work on wikipedia and translation abilities from Romanian is a precious thing -several hundres clones of yourself would do the trick!!! Keep up the great work. Blofeld ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing can you clear something up. Is it Maria Baciu or Baciu Maria??? I was sure Baciu was a surname ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I'm well aware some will not be that notable in fact browsing through the categories there are several stubs I ignored because they didn't look that worthy particularly after a google search showed nothing. In fact I was discussing the problem with some Slovene users yesterday that some of the other wikipedias go a bit overboard with biographies on their native people who may not be that notable. I think I;m a pretty good judge of what is acceptable. Though. I just stubbed Ştefan Baciu anyway. Yes on Romanian wiki the name was Baciu Maria at the start which made me wonder! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Also started Anatol E. Baconski - I see he died in the 1977 'quake. There appears to be several links to him already on wikipedia some of them may fill in the picture a bit ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Yes i thought he looked like a good article could be written -I admire the way you work on expanding the stubs not only to start class like most editors do but you develop them practically to GA leve which is awesome. I've just stubbed Vasile Baghiu but rather than keep bothering you if you like I;ll create a list from now on of the Romanian articles I create so you can keep tabs on what I have started. I'll throw in a few painters and other bios in the coming weeks. Best regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Romania. Don't feel you have to expand every one I start or feel under pressure, hope this helps anyway ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure thing buddy, thanks for the words of warning anyway, I hope in my experience I've picked up a radar for filtering. Yes unfortunately that is the down side of wiki in that some people think it is a playground for political propaganda. I'm constantly having to revert edits to the Tibet article, by editors who think it is a chinese stronghold and will try to use the article to authorise chinese authority over it. Be careful though with that Vasile article, I uploaded the image from ro wiki which looks like a private photo, a have a suspicion the article may have been written partly by the actual writer himself so who knows what bias it may contain. His works look like a reason for notability though. I'll also try to fill in some red links on your articles such as that Sfarma Piatra .. something or other (can't remember the name but it was something like that lol. Best regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK heres the latest. I'm done for today -three links have been blue linked on the article. The end one is a composer who I saw in a romanian encyclopedia -could do with some expansion. Shouldn't it be Mihail Andreescu-Skeletty ?? I wasn't sure about that but I thought I'd start it -I figured if it wasn't notable it wouldn't be in that encyclopedia linked in it.

• Camil Baltazar
• Pompiliu Constantinescu
• Victor Iamandi
• Andreescu Skeletty Mihai

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in Romania

On 18 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Slavery in Romania, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Stefanski

I've created Alexander Stefanski for the RCP general secretary (1931-1936) based on sources I could find on the net. Could you take a look at it and develop it further if you have time? Thanks. CRakovsky (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added what I could based on Polish sources (he popped up on new Polish articles list).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roumanians.png

Hey there. You recently removed the source information for this particular image. Please don't do this, as it is important that the source of any image is recorded when it is used on Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether you object to the particular wording of the templates used, but it is indeed true that the four constituent images that make it up are public domain and the editor of these images has also made it clear that this version is public domain as well. Whilst an argument about authorship of this specific compilation of images might be appropriate if someone was claiming their own copyright to such an image, I see no evidence of this here so it really isn't important. What matters is that it is recorded in the image source that this is a public domain image comprised of four images, which are all themselves in the public domain (and of course sourced). Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

On 6 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ruxandra Cesereanu, 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.

--Victuallers (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo!

Re Sadoveanu: so that's what you were up to. Well done. And I was just about to solicit a vote on that list - thank you for saving me the trouble and bringing forth a compelling argument in the process. It seems harder and harder to get rubbish deleted these days...
And by the way, I did test the "just because an article can exist, should it exist" line here, but the reaction was a mix of bewilderment and defiance. Oh, and just today, another "it met the criteria, so I created the article" figure. Biruitorul (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm being asked for proof Take Ionescu was an atheist...any ideas? Biruitorul (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a vacation's a vacation, Dahn. It's just that common sense is in short supply here at times. Anyway, I fixed the DYK and removed Tache for now (on second reading, your interpretation was correct). On Sadoveanu: yes, by all means, if you've analysed the texts thoroughly, it may well be he wasn't a Communist. After all, was Petru Groza ever a Communist? As for Turgidson's return...la Paşte, sau poate la Paştele cailor - I'll keep my eyes peeled.
Incidentally, before thinking of Groza, I was going to make the point that under the East German Constitution nothing prevented a member of, say, the National Front from becoming President - and I found Wikisource's machine translation of the oath of office to be rather amusing: "I swear that I mean Kraft the well-being of the German people dedicate, which and the laws of the republic protects condition my obligations conscientiously to fulfill and against everyone will practice justice"!
So, I've done the Pentecostalists; now would be a good time to assess our progress on religion. BOR: needs work, Greek Catholics: needs work, Lipovans: needs work, Reformaţi: needs work, Baptists: needs work, Old-Calendarists, needs work, Roman Catholics: fine, Unitarians: fine, Pentecostals: fine, Adventists: fine, Jews: fine*, Islam: fine.
*(Though I recently noticed rather scant mention of Transylvanian Jews, and little in the Jews of Hungary article - is the plan to include information on them there eventually, and discuss the post-1918 period in the Romania article? One could almost have a separate "Transylvanian Jews" article.)
Of the ones needing work and the as-yet-uncreated ones, I'd say the highest priorities are Reformed and Evangelical-Augustan Confession. Well, at least those are the more manageable ones - BOR and BRU remain priorities, but those are rather massive undertakings. Biruitorul (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry in Romania - somewhat inspired by Sadoveanu, but could still use a lot of expansion (plus some issues are unclear, like how exactly the 1937 and 1948 closures came about). Also, about that list at the bottom - I wouldn't mind having a "Romanian Freemasons" category, but for some reason there's not "Freemasons by nationality" super-category - shall we look into creating that as well? Biruitorul (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Danieliuk-Stefanski , 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.

--Bobet 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Romanian contributions

I see you were recently involved with near edit-warring on the Romanians article. Due to this, the page has been subsequently fully protected so only administrators can edit it. I was hoping to start some form of informal mediation between you and the other user, would that assist in preventing further edit wars? If not, or you wish to decline the offer, don't reply to this message. Regards, Rudget (review) 14:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caradja

As indicated in his biography Jean Georges Caradja lived 90 years out of which he lived in Wallachia from 1812 to 1818 (approx. 6 years). I was notified that he signed his name in french. I do not know if he spoke romanian, but if he did he probably didn't do it very well. Actually other members of the Caradja family also used their french names, for instance Nicolas Caradja. Using as title of the article a romanian name for a person who never used it would be strange.It is logical to use the way signed his name. Afil (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be so kind and take up the matter with Stenic74 who raised the question. Afil (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dahn, for me John is fine, I just had a justified issue with Caragea. So please feel free to change the given names accoringly (but we should do it in all related pages). Have a nice evening, Stenic74 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to suggest to leave in the Romanian Wikipedia the two names "Ioan Gheorghe"... Best, Stenic74 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re

Check your email. Khoikhoi 05:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rezistenta

Hi, Dahn

You have assumed ressitenta to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Icar. Since Icar is an old account the checkuser is not helpful in this case. We have to make a reasonably difficult decision based on the contribution histories only. Please provide a list of similarities (common misspellings, editorial patterns, editorial interests) between two users and I (or another admin if you prefer) would make a decision. You can use an E-mail if you prefer. Rezistenta indeed looks like a second account of an experienced user but I have no ideas who he might be. There might be legitimate cases for using the second account Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dahn,

I do not insist at all on the french version of the given names (eventhough they often appear in the literature) but I know that the version with dj is the correct name of this family. I do not want too many experiments and suggest to keep dj and take whatever version of the given names that suits. Have a nice day,

Stenic74 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, again

I would value your input on the current debate on the talk page of the Michael article. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 12 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mihail Sadoveanu, 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.

--Wizardman 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villages, again

Dahn, I have a quick request of you since I can't spare time right now to explain yet again why we don't need village articles. But if you look here, you'll see we'll need to intervene rather quickly to avert disaster, as tons of village articles are being written. I'd suggest leaving a message here and maybe pointing to this discussion to make the case that GEOnet is, shall we say, less than reliable. Thanks! Biruitorul (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hodoş, Darova, Timiş, Hodoş, Brestovăţ, Timiş, Hodoş, Bihor, Hodoş, Aţel, Sibiu, Hodoş, Şaroş pe Târnave, Sibiu, Şaroş pe Târnave... But yes, I noticed the "Saxon language" thing too, plus that site gives about 10 names each in German and Hungarian with minor spelling variations; I was under the impression that one each was generally sufficient (except in cases like Gherla). Anyway, we do have the option of merging later on, but just the fact that a number of editors have created massive amounts of stubs of dubious value from GEOnet is unfortunate. Biruitorul (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly might help. I did some investigation and found that the only counties where all commune redlinks are filled are Alba, Buzău, Cluj, Constanţa, Covasna, Harghita, Ilfov and Satu Mare - just 8 of 40. In terms of village articles that we do have, the situation is still relatively under control except for List of villages in Cluj - but I fear that only by devising the policy you suggested will we be able to eliminate that page and the articles contained therein, so any ideas where to take this? Biruitorul (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of the treasures I unearthed while ploughing through various village articles: Rădăcineşti, Vâlcea (brand new), Călimăneşti! Biruitorul (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this guideline apply just to Romania (on the WP:NC:CITY model), or to the whole world? If the latter, we should be careful how we formulate it. The noticeboard is probably a dead end; WP:GEOGRAPHY's talk page seems like a good place but it's rather dead, so I suppose the MOS talk would be ideal.

For the templates, "noinclude" should do the trick - see here for how to do it. If size is a problem (and for me it only really is for Template:Cluj (which anyway is redundant to Template:CommunesCluj, at least once the villages are merged), then I suppose there's the split option.

I've begun to start articles on all communes - not very exciting, dar să ştim şi noi o socoteală. I may as well let you know now what I think should happen: these (the ones on the bottom, not the subcategories) and these somehow need to be dealt with - merge, delete, keep, whatever. I'd also like to delete the Transylvania category once it's depleted because a) I'd rather not have the silly debate about whether the Banat or Crişana or the Sătmar are "really" part of Transylvania, b) we have the county categories, and those should suffice, since there's no vagueness involved there. (Well, there is one Transylvanian commune outside a Transylvanian county - Ghimeş-Făget, Bacău - but that's an anomaly.)

Oh, and the county categories will also have to be checked because there may be some villages hiding there (Gura Văii, Arad, Şuşiţa, Grozeşti, Mehedinţi)... Biruitorul (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By chance, I was looking through Tricolorul today (not a regular occurrence) and found this interesting photo. It's from 1913, so probably in the public domain, and my impression is that Codreanu Senior might deserve his own article at some point , so it may be advisable to hold on to this. Biruitorul (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an explanation, but unfortunately, "all villages and settlements are inherently notable, per WP:N and precedent. Tiny villages everywhere else have articles, as will no doubt the Romanian ones; many already do at the Romanian wikipedia". Samarineşti, Mehedinţi, for instance, just created. I'm a bit at a loss how to proceed. Perhaps pushing through the policy would be a good idea, but given many probably share this mindset, I don't know how great our chances of succeeding are. Also, village articles are bound to keep coming through, especially as all the commune articles are having redlinks added to them... It seems a bit hopeless, really. Do we swallow 25,000 more micro-stubs, or carry on somehow? Biruitorul (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that was the new project - well done. Quite coincidental, I assure you - I focused on counties without diacritics in their name, as somewhat fewer than all their communes would require redirects. Biruitorul (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, when you do get to an FAC. By the way, you may have noticed I've started articles on Romania's constitutions. One redlink remains in the template, referring to the "1864 constitution". I have to wonder about this, though. On the one hand, there have been other interim constitutional laws - one from July 1946, which gutted some of the 1923 one, and one from December 30, 1947, in place for 3½ months - and we say nothing of them. And it wasn't called a constitution either, and plenty of sources call 1866 the first one. On the other hand, unlike earlier documents, it was adopted by referendum, and was not interim in character. Still, my inclination would be to remove it from the template and if we do write about it, to do so under another title. Biruitorul (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not again! Biruitorul (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks just the same, and same to you! I'll look into those categories when I take another break from the festivities. Also, thank you for your input on the Freemasons. I was going to abandon the thing (some fights just aren't that interesting), but then I noticed how nicely (by era and by country) the Germans deal with it (plus the 11 languages listed on the left, and even ro.wiki), so the struggle shall go on, at least intermittently, I hope - at least until the other side gives a valid reason for suppressing it. Biruitorul (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, naturally, the ro.wiki presence isn't a selling point, but what is is its inclusion in the next 8 Wikipedias by size after en.wiki - we're really the odd ones out here. By the way, I added quite a few dead Freemasons (with apologies for using the Romanian flag next to Bălcescu's name - I'm sure he wouldn't mind, though), but I found it rather hard to come by reliable sources on living ones. For instance it's well known that Mugur Isărescu is one, but mostly forums and similar sites seem to mention the fact. Any ideas? Also, if you know of others, do add them in - that is, if I'm not sidetracking you from something bigger; this Mason hunt is a bit silly, but entertaining. (Also, when we get to write more about the 1860s, it will be interesting to explore their influence at their high point (well, 1848 was another high point, but in a different way.)) Biruitorul (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Category:Anti-Revisionists was created by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked user - perhaps that would make deletion easier. So, any thoughts on The Other Place? Biruitorul (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello my friend. I would like to ask you for a little help. I'll have an exam next week and would like to know about the electoral reform in Romania which occurred probably in the 2000s. From what I know it was designed to limit fragmentation of Romanian political system. Can you please tell me about that reform and current electoral system in Romania? Thank you very much. - Darwinek (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both very much. I certainly will use your help, it is very useful for me. Thanks again, now I am going to learn that complicated Hungarian electoral system. :) - Darwinek (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I passed all three parts on the first time. One of the questions was about the Romanian electoral reform, so your input really helped me. :) - Darwinek (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Panait Cerna, 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.

-Susanlesch (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Sebastiani

I think I fixed the template (for now). The issue was not the infobox merge but a bit of clever coding which worked on the last version of the MediaWiki software (the overall software which runs Wikipedia) but no longer works - that would have broken no matter what infobox it was located in. Orderinchaos 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I've edited the template, so any article using that template should be OK now. But it's a quick fix (I basically told the template to treat width exactly like imagesize and ignore height) and I guess it's just a matter of keeping an eye out to make sure the problem doesn't recur with future edits. Orderinchaos 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]