Great to have you back! I know the Tzara episode was highly frustrating (at least I got an absurd {{unreferenced}} tag off the biography), and I kept drafting a message to ask you to return, as recently as two days ago. Luckily, you've spared me that task.
1. Categories now exist: time to fill them up!
2. Not that much happened during your break, although it's spreading! And: guess who? Oh, and that thrilling debate is back -- stand by. Ah, and Social structure of Romania... (Also, did you take note of the recent additions to the Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu article?)
3. Unfortunately, Şubă is likely to remain Suba for the time being, given this debate. Troubling, but that's that. I guess Moţoc is notable and expandable, but given this (diacritics used everywhere else), it may just be her name is Motoc.
4. Very interesting and worth pursuing, if at all possible, this notion of an African empire for Romania, but as you say, Romania itself was somewhat of an imperial possession, not to mention Dobrogea (I linked to an article on that once, but seem to have lost the link).
5. I agree the Fototeca name is ungrammatical, and will support any effort to change it. Speaking of original research: can we say this is a Lipovan? - Biruitorul Talk 16:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
On a much lighter note, I see the following are still redlinks:
Elena Udrea,
Elena Băsescu,
Maria Băsescu,
Mona Muscă,
Raluca Turcan,
Ecaterina Andronescu,
Miron Mitrea,
Viorel Hrebenciuc,
Victor Babiuc,
Răzvan Theodorescu,
Octav Cozmâncă,
Ludovic Orban,
Sorin Ovidiu Vântu and, best of all,
Ristea Priboi. I once tried to write Maria Băsescu's biography, but didn't get very far. Oh, and how about
Disappearance of Elodia Ghinescu? If she were British, she'd surely have an article, but as I like to say, we're an encyclopedia, not tabloid trash, so it's just as well she doesn't.
By the way, considering the unexpected source,
this is a surprisingly fresh account. It does, frustratingly, skip over some important stuff (like 1957-65 -- but hey, we skip 1954-65), but it may be something to hold on to. -
Biruitorul
Talk
03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
One further point: not the belabor the subject, but I'm sure this will be of some interest. - Biruitorul Talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I've replied there, although not in quite such a lengthy manner as yours. 84.13.166.159 ( talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You should perhaps report this bug. It would imporve the bot. Dc76\ talk 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow! What have I gotten myself into? I had a suspicion that when I started those edits I would get into trouble. Here's what I was after: the articles as written (excluding the info boxes) did not clarify how long the ţinuturi lasted. To me as a curious reader, I felt that was an obvious gap that needed to be closed. I did not realize the political complexity of it all, however. Given your obvious knowledge, may I suggest you tackle the corrections? I think you'll do a better job. If you want me to check for clarity, let me know! cheers! Verne Equinox ( talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree there is a lot of xenophobic and POV crap included in many Romani related articles, and I hope my pedantic chippings at minor issues is not an irritant. Like yourself, I do also see the bigger picture and would like better cooperation between like-minded editors with whom I may have differences of opinion on relatively minor issues but generally agree with when it comes to 'the big picture'. I think there should be more discussion here. RashersTierney ( talk) 01:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried to create an article about actual romanian territory and the impact that the Mongol invasion had. If you want reference read ro:Invazia mongolă din 1241 şi ţările române. As you have mentioned my grammar seems "unworthy" of english wikipedia but as worse as my grammar seems to be there is nothing funny about this article! You do a better article! There is a good article for reference here http://www.rocsir.usv.ro/archiv/2004_1-2/2VioletaEpure2004.pdf ♫ Razool —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC).
Hello! Sorry not to react immediately. Modifying the article, was not malicious from my side. To tellthe truth I have double interest to keep the information I felt to delete.
For the picture: you might be right from the point it is the main church, but on the other side the picture does not show the whole church (not the most fortunate one), only the middle and the church itself is architecturally not the most beautiful one (19th century, not imposant, better than the concrete one on the bottom, but still for teh main picture I think some "romantic" would be better). Therefore I replaced with the one I selected. I hope I convince you as well.
For the info for the Hungarian kings and Catholic legends, I am neutral, on one hand I like to advertise Hungarian historical facts, but on the other hand, if I look at the topic and protestant reality saints have not much to do in this article.
So my intention was not at all against you and I appreciate your efforts in the topic, I hope for the pic I convinced you,
have a nice day, -- Vargatamas ( talk) 12:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The
January 2009 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)
03:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you know who "Cînde" is, listed as a Romanian poet here in this Wiki list [1]? I couldn't find out online. A from L.A. ( talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I haven't forgotten about the WikiProject, but I'm waiting for someone else to add more to it and to help it get started. I'm not into symbolist literature nearly as much as I was ten years ago, and I was never much into what is called symbolist painting. I like art nouveau, but even that is a lot of old school stuff that I only look back on sometimes. My taste in painting is pretty modern. A from L.A. ( talk) 19:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I took no offence, I think we're entirely in agreement on the issue of the ahnentafels. I'll wait a little bit to see if anyone else weighs in, but I'd be happy to join a campaign against them, in FAs particularly.
The family tree is a different matter though; I created that myself. It is not there to present new information, but to give a graphical representation of something that can be very difficult to understand through text alone, particularly for readers not intimately familiar with the subject. Tables like this are very common in academic publications. Lampman ( talk) 15:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dahn, I know that this is a pain now that you've commented extensively on the category talk page, but prior to your comments I didn't think there was much hope of generating further comment there, so I went ahead and made a formal CfD nomination for discussion of the issues raised there. The link is here is you'd like to make comments there (perhaps some cutting and pasting to duplicate your comments is in order): Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_15#Anglicans_parent_category_(-ies). Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like you to take another look at this issue. It is not as simple as it seems and we currently have a tree where Roman Catholic articles end up in a subcategory of Protestantism. Please take another look at this. -- Secisek ( talk) 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
We currently have articles such as Pastoral Provision, Anglican Use and Book of Divine Worship which concern the Roman Catholic Church which are presently in a subcat of Protestantism. -- Secisek ( talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
They are related to both but none of those subjects should be in a sub cat of Protestantism - and one small change corrects this. -- Secisek ( talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. But too much imagination is also no good: history is a discipline, a subject, whatever you want, but not a science! :-) I'm not going to touch your edit, though. Dc76\ talk 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I found a: quote: legendary art dealer, Ileana Sonnabend, born October 28th, 1914 in Bucharest. Currently her article redirects to Leo Castelli. Do you think we should give her her own article? Seems like something you'd be interested in. A from L.A. ( talk) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
X-D Oh, that's priceless. No, that's perfectly fine, although I was a bit confused at first. Best of luck getting your clocks set the right way! (by the way, it's currently 11:30 PM US Eastern, and 4:30 AM GMT ;-) ) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 04:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If that's your secret plan, I'd like more of it, please :) DYK is a cool place, it's a good opportunity for interesting but not-yet-rated articles to appear easily on the Main Page. That said, I think your stuff should have some kind of automatic FA status, I felt weird assessing such detailed, well-sourced, high-quality content for the modest DYK ;) Keep it up and all the best, Todor → Bozhinov 07:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Your article has been put in queue to appear on the main page. It is currently in Queue 5 and should appear on the Main Page in the morning. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Might I suggest self reverting? That was your
4th revert in 24 hours and so you are liable to be blocked otherwise. --
Narson ~
Talk •
12:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right about the authorship, which I've fixed. For the rest, would it be possible for you to go ahead with the edits and show me more clearly what you'd like done? I'm sure it'll be agreeable, but I'm also going to be away for a few days and I may as well leave the matter in trusted hands. - Biruitorul Talk 06:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thought: looking at Florentina Mosora, I kept wondering if any improvement was possible, and then I realised: this should be held up as a model of how not to write an article. - Biruitorul Talk 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking, if you need a break from Ion, The Other One could use some attention too :) But with so many news articles on him in recent days, I should be able to handle this myself. By the way, have you seen Ethnic flag?? Even if we buy that the flag of Romania represents ethnic Romanians as well as the country Romania, North Koreans? I wasn't aware that all Japanese are represented by this flag, or that this one represents the Vietnamese. And do "Anglo-Africans" really attach much importance to this flag, last used 99 years ago? And why does a 1485 flag better represent the Portuguese than the one used since 1911? And, if we're going to talk about ethnic flags, where is an ethnic flag par excellence, this one? So many questions on this front... - Biruitorul Talk 15:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
1) We now know who Anonimu is! 2) This is getting annoying; it's too bad how one determined user can hold up consensus like that. - Biruitorul Talk 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The
February 2009 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)
21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The
February 2009 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)
21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am back, but I will mostly make maps, since I do not have time to edit articles like before. Anyway, thank you for your welcome. PANONIAN 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on the WP Symbolism & Art Nouveau template but I don't like how it looks. I'm going to try to make it look nicer on my own, but if you want to help. Alex ( talk) 20:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right that I was bending the definition of fair-use... However, regarding the "low resolution", I'm still saying the image is low resolution, because it is has a size of 242 x 320 pixels, compared to the original which has 966 x 1280 pixels. Regarding the "adequately give the same information" part, I *could* argue that this picture provides more information than the old picture (it represents the subject more accurately; for example, you can see that he has a mole under the right eye), but I won't, because I agree that's a silly argument.
I guess that in the back of my mind, the reason that pushed me to add this picture is that the old one is marked PD, but has no author information (therefore we cannot know for sure that the author of the picture died more 70 years ago), we do not know where it was first published (so we cannot know for sure if the Romanian copyright law applies, or the US law, or other laws). I was adding this image with full source information, and I guess I was sub-consciously thinking that the old image may not be *really* PD, so the images *may* have the same copyright status, but the new image has a better quality and complete source information.
Therefore I will propose this image to be deleted, letting others to have the final words on this one. Razvan Socol ( talk) 06:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the WikiProject who is Running for coordinator (cross your fingers on my bid for coordinator) it is always great to see someone else who shares your same opinion (that we don't need a C-Class). Keep up the Good Work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI: It has no content (so I don't know how it could possibly enhance the article), and has been spammed cross-wiki. It's now blacklisted. — Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 20:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"Dahn", aveti aerul ca sinteti la curent... Si dumneavoastra anonim, din pacate... Nu inteleg, totusi, de ce atita ura si obstinatie in a scoate linkul catre situl lui Fondane? Situl va fi activ peste putin timp. Nu credeti ca ar fi mai bine - daca tot aveti acces la interfata - sa corectati acel "Barbu" de pe pagina romana, unde ceilalti utilizatori nu au acces? Chiar nu inteleg de ce atita incrincenare. Toate paginile lui Fondane, in toate limbile, sint prost facute, cu greseli... Iar, cind incepe cineva sa lucreze la ele, primul lucru pe care il fac unii este sa le vandalizeze, sa scoata linkurile si asa mai departe. Trist. 213.233.103.74 ( talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Luiza Palanciuc
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You recently started a discussion for deletion of the Template:Eastern Bloc defection because it was too long.
This was an easily fixable issue, and a discussion on the Talk page would have alerted others to the length issue. It was, for example, about as short as the tangentially related Template:Cold War, and I had no idea length was an issue to anyone and had, myself, continued to expand the Template accordingly.
If, when a fixable issue arises, you discuss an issue first on the talk page, it will avoid deletion, followed by starting another article with the same material, only the issues in the deletion discussion fixed. Mosedschurte ( talk) 14:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
In Template:Eastern Bloc defection. That's pretty much bordering on vandalism.
If you have an issue with some not being descriptive enough, please alter the description, don't delete all of them. Mosedschurte ( talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Mosedschurte and Dahn - stop responding to each other. Whatever the original incident, you're just arguing back and forth here and being disruptive. Stop responding and let some uninvolved administrators review and get back to you with more feedback.
If you continue pushing each others' buttons, a short block to prevent further disruption and rude behavior may be required. Please don't do that - let us review, ask you some questions on your talk pages, let things calm down now.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Meanwhile, I'm happy to report no trouble with the other village mergers, the one exception being Galeş. Its creator is the author of the YouTube videos linked, and tenaciously defends the article. Ideally, my version of Sălişte will be restored and the redirect protected by someone, because for now at least, there's no stopping him.
2. An odd ruling from the FA director: even if the site is an RS (dubious), their blog certainly isn't.
3. We may have to rethink it if he gets elected (or even gets into the second round, or becomes PM). There's also Mihai Antonescu, though I'd say Ion is clearly still the primary usage.
4. By the way, since you asked before, there is a trickle of news sources on the nPCR: [4], [5], [6] and the Nepecerişti (a different party): [7].
5. "Politics is the art of the possible." I'm sure there are better ways of presenting the information (plus I wish there was more on 1969-89), but I can almost guarantee it'd survive AfD in the current form: "look! Sources! Notable!" Just look at the way this is headed: agreements signed, leaders had a meeting -> notable! - Biruitorul Talk 16:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, there was still a Sima, but a Sima in control of a very fractured Guard, one that perhaps the brilliant minds heading the state could have found ways to exploit the divisions of. It seems individual Romanians are endlessly being co-opted and abandoning principles at the drop of a hat (democrats to fascists, fascists to communists, communists to fascists to democrats...); in retrospect, Călinescu's mistake seems to have been not backing (tacitly) the elder Codreanu rather than going after the Guard as a whole. Plus, had the Patriarch and senior bishops been induced to speak out forcefully against the Guard in the fall of 1940 (which I'm sure could have been arranged), that too might have sapped its strength. And even if part of the Guard were being persecuted, I don't think Hitler would have cared that much as long as the oil kept flowing (and, say, overflight rights) - indeed, maybe Maniu could have arranged to send Guard members (and Saxons & Swabians) en masse to the front, killing two birds with one stone...
I'd actually
removed the blog source when he reverted me; if he still doesn't see the problem, I don't know if I should press the matter.
No, I didn't know about the NPCR article. I can't say quite what the opposition was thinking in '44 - certainly '40 was on their minds at least, but after about '37, and certainly after '44, they strike me as a rather passé, disoriented bunch pursuing illusory scenarios (see Argetoianu). Infinitely preferable to the PCR, of course, just not really "with it".
I think the relations articles may be headed toward some sort of guideline. Anyway, it's good that at least a few people see things the way we do. -
Biruitorul
Talk
21:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Indians in Romania - an AfD candidate? - Biruitorul Talk 18:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I've mentioned him to you before, but today, I had to laugh as I looked at the photo of Toma George Maiorescu. I like how part of the article is in Romanian. But hey, Renate Weber also has a nice resume up (written by her press officer), and so does Sarsembaev, Marat Aldangorovich (written by one User:Данияр СМ), but at least that one's up for deletion. (Weber is of course notable; we just shouldn't be hosting her PR materials.) - Biruitorul Talk 16:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, a Happy Easter to you, Dahn. Ah, and it gets even better: "Este o rusine de om , un excrement a lui Iliescu si al FSNului a carui sluga a fost aducand prejudicii majore cauzei democratiei romanesti de dupa "revolutie"." Could even qualify for speedy deletion, but it's absolutely good for AfD. Pretty soon I'll have more time and be able to write some more, but while I'm still in this anti-silly bilaterals crusade, this strikes me as even more absurd than Romania-Armenia: apparently, one need not even be a state to conduct bilateral relations today. Who knew? (Well, of course the PLO used to do it, Abkhazia does it - but in this case there's no doubt the Dutch government is the one conducting the relations.) - Biruitorul Talk 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Bravo on the latest barrage of devastating logic (which, alas, is having difficulty penetrating through); this is also bound to be of interest to you. - Biruitorul Talk 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Dahn, I'm not sure which category you were referring to re. the Christian Rakovsky article (I think it was my inclusion of the category "Romanian politicians"). Since Rakovsky did run for Parliament in Romania according to the article, I thought that the categorization would be appropriate. I also cleaned up one or two grammatical mistakes and added a couple of other obviously relevant categories and put what there was in alphabetical order (there must be over 40 categories for the Rakovsky page, so I thought sorting them out might be more user-friendly than making people scan for five minutes before adding or removing a relevant or irrelevant one). Not sure why you reverted, but since you're watching the article, I'll stick with your judgment in either case.
Thanks, 166.203.0.99 ( talk) 22:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Biruitorul Talk 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The
March 2009 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)
02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Dahn! I made here a proposal for renaming. Cheers! -- Olahus ( talk) 10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Something has to be done with the article Latin Europe. I noticed you have been involved with the article, and have pointed out some issues with it. Isnt there a wikigroup dedicated to rewritting this disgraceful article. I have a good understanding on the subject, and am willing to offer my services. -- Lucius Sempronius Turpio ( talk) 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not personal, but please discuss the changes in the talk page. I'm only trying to avoid the weasel wording (as "rarely") and it's true that the terms Moldovan and Moldavian are overlapping. Besides, the moldovans, as an ethnic group are recognized only in states that belonged to the former Soviet Union. Regards, -- Olahus ( talk) 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
∗ \ / ( ⁂) 07:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've reverted your redirect here. As I see that you yourself have been arguing, Latin Europe is not the same as the countries in Europe who speak a Romance language (otherwise Romania and Moldova would have been included). The "Romance-speaking Europe" article is therefore helpful to distinguish the two (as well as the table being somewhat useful). If you still disagree, please can we discuss before reverting again. Cheers. Lingamondo ( talk) 09:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be the polite police, but I think that calling the the edit of the family's origin vandalism is a bit harsh and does not assume WP:GF. The line as it appears now is a bit awkward and does not aptly explain why "South Slav" "Bulgarian and "aromanian" are all used when the last appears to describe the first two. I have no idea what the correct term is or why there are so many descriptions about their origin, but I can see why aromanian would be used since it appears to encompass all 3. I don't know enough to support the previous change, but I do know it is within the bounds of good faith. Mrathel ( talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What seems to be your problem!? What are your motivations on pretending like Romania isn't a part of Latin Europe!?
Why is it that important to you to keep up false pieces informations on the Wikipedia page? I really don't understand what your problem is! -- Pletet ( talk) 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi! How are you? I am working on the article of the heading, and I was wondering if you have any sources about the following paragraph of the article:
I am trying to research, prood-read it, and cite it, but on-line sources are not so helpful. So, I was wondering if you have any sources, dealing with these events, in order to check the accuracy of the above thread.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't intend to break WP:SYNTH here. Can you reformulate the article in a way that doesn't break this rule? -- Olahus ( talk) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if you would include the U.S.S.R. as part of the Communist Bloc, or if you were referring specifically to the Eastern Bloc/Satellite States. (Odd really I never thought of it, I suppose the U.S.S.R. wouldn't call it the Eastern Bloc, being on their west and all that.)
Anyway, the coverage of U.S.S.R./Russia's involvement in the Egypt article seems to me extremely sketchy (two mentions of "soviet" and none of "Russia", and that in relation to the Six Day War. But Russia had a big hand in e.g. building the Aswan High Dam and providing lots of lovely roubles and nice weapons.
I should probably try to expand this a bit in the Egypt article myself, I lived there a couple of years so I know a bit about it but I don't have much in the way of reliable sources, if I did that and you proceeded with the eastern bloc & third world overview then you could simply refer to it, one way or another (include a summary or see also or main or whatever is most appropriate). What do you think?
I suppose this is also assuming you consider that Egypt is, or rather at least until 1970ish when they booted the U.S.S.R. out WAS, third world. I don't think that's an unreasonable definition but perhaps you were thinking more specifically about sub-saharan Africa or something?
There's probably quite some interest with the Communist Bloc and Libya too, and perhaps Algeria-- I don't know much about those. Certainly I think what you propose would make a good article.
BTW nomenclature: I was always told that the Communist Bloc was the "second world" and the "third world" was what we were taught. Now it's "developing nations" or some codswallop, which seems unnecessarily vague (as if first world nations aren't developing too) and the "western world" or similar, whereas most of the states in the "western world" are in the Eastern Hemisphere. To my mind, "first", "second", "third" world" are just much better when describing the political get-up, which of course is what this would be about. If existing definitions are unsatisfactory they can either be changed or, if there is resistance, narrower definitions placed in the article — I have done that in the past just to avoid needless repetition throughout, and it seems to raise few objections providing one isn't defining black as white.
Best wishes, let me know your thoughts. SimonTrew ( talk) 07:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
(:I don't know where you prefer replies so I will do it here, quoting you where necessary.)
Question, Dahn. Is there any good link you see between these two? I'm not that interested in a DYK on them, but if I can do one, why not? Guşă is the godfather of Şandru's daughter, but I doubt that cuts it. Maybe the fact that one now works for the PSD, and the other wanted to join them recently, despite their serious criticisms of it in the past?
Anyway: who knew? Seriously. This is outrageous, as is this, and this only slightly less so. But with the willful determination to throw in all the trivia one can find, it's to be expected. - Biruitorul Talk 03:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem at all. I actually have a somewhat interesting DYK hook on, of all people, Radu Berceanu. As I was writing on him, he seemed the exemplar of a post-'89 apparatchik - plain-looking, low-key, relatively uncontroversial, local party boss, stays just out of sight in his fiefdoms (the Ministry and the Dolj party apparatus), amassing a nice bank account in the process - but then the Securitate dossier caught my eye. So, if you could go just above this and, if all checks out, verify that hook, I'd much appreciate it. - Biruitorul Talk 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
" Grey market transactions" is precise if a bit verbose; speculation doesn't carry quite the same connotations as it did in Communist countries; smuggling, trafficking and bootlegging sound rather too dramatic. It looks like a few terms more or less hit the mark, but none (at first glance) quite precisely. - Biruitorul Talk 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries there, and I'm glad you finally got a chance to see it. My own attention has drifted away from that area: after all, how does one counter arguments like these? Much more interesting to write about people with unfortunate hunting accidents. By the way: note the obvious hole in his official CV (1981-1991): I know "economic adviser" in the Church has "Securitate" stamped all over it (especially when working under Nicolae Corneanu), but a) isn't he aware of Google, and that the press is bound to pick up on these things? b) vehemently denying one's involvement but then conveniently hiding a decade in an official résumé would tend to raise more questions than answers, I'd think. - Biruitorul Talk 18:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Dahn, may I ask you to intervene here, lest I be accused of revert-warring? Not that the prior version was great, but it's in our interests to avoid another Csangos-like disaster. (This individual is in any case worth watching - the damage he's done to articles like Hungary (the history section...) is already palpable.) - Biruitorul Talk 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The
April 2009 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)
22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've put the recent rant on the talk page (and subsequent support of that position) up for discussion here. -- Narson ~ Talk • 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I'll leave the article as it is, but your edit summary is really rude.
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Reywas92 Talk 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The
May 2009 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)
22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For excellent arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists. Stifle ( talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Dahn. I see you've picked up on those systematic additions to Romani related articles. I don't see the pressing need for any of them and think they should go, but was waiting to see if others on the Project also saw it as unusual. RashersTierney ( talk) 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you please check, by Wiki rules in articles is used widely accepted names (in this case Romanian names) so there is no valid reason why Hungarian names should be prezent except on that city`s page. Thank you 79.114.47.213 ( talk) 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a rule Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) , under paragraph "Widely accepted name" where in this case is Romanian language. When used in article , any article it should use only Widely accepted name - Romanian names, when wikipedia redirects then can be used bilingual names of the city`s in Romania, Hungary or any other state. I hope this rule will be respected. What they are trying to do is to impose the Hungarian version of a name based on historical nostalgy and not on actual usage while providing no valid arguments. Regarding this article, (Laszlo Tokes), at the time he was born the city`s mentioned in the article were/are part of Romania. These is no valid reason why the Hungarian names should be present, in this case, other than Hungarian names added on the city`s page. Thank you.
79.114.47.213 (
talk)
12:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The offensive IP originates from a High School. If it's inflammatory behavior continues their access to wikipedia will have to be cut off. Hobartimus ( talk) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you call the Hungarian national hero, Vlach? And why did you remove the source? There was a source on the Catholic enciklopedia... You are vandal?
I known, that my english command of a language is not correct, but was expect, that what wrote in the article emphatic. The Vojk name not it seems Vlach name, some thurgh the territory (Wallachia), accordingly the Cumans also Wallachians along with the Vlachs and others nations. Doncsecz znánje 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replying - my irritation was at having to unexpectedly go through several already approved DYKs for what seemed relatively minor issues but I respect your views on this. Although, ... that Constantin Mille worked on the same organization as Constantin Rădulescu-Motru"? is not really comparable as (1) you have not mentioned the organization and (2) it is two names without any description for either. I don't believe I would ever submit a DYK as vague as this but if I did and it was problematic I am sure it would be changed either before or after posting. The bold link is the updated one, the one that attracts the eye, so anyone who clicks would realise the occupation, life details, etc. of the subject even if the fact in the hook is not expanded upon. Take the current set, the one which I find intriguing is - "that Rafael Palmeiro won the Gold Glove Award at first base in 1999 despite appearing in only 28 games at the position?" I have not a clue what this is about... what is this game/award or who is the person? Questions which are forming in my mind as I type. If I want to know I will have to click, otherwise I will remain lost in ignorance forever. I also have a terrible record of not knowing what is popular or unpopular and have discovered many of my DYKs are either more known or unknown than I could have known. The irony is that I aimed several of those DYKs at the tastes and knowledge of American readers (which I don't normally try to do) and yet they have drawn more comment than unsual... interesting all the same. I hope I have not offended and apologies if I have. -- can dle • wicke 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Very nice article. I knew you were the author before looking at its history. User:Dpotop
Hello Dahn! I really appreciate your advice and encouragement. I am working on the issue of references. Given the level of your knowledge, you seem to be a professional historian. Cheers, Peterkecs ( talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Why, my pleasure. And I look forward to seeing what you have coming down the pipeline. - Biruitorul Talk 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
My own inclination would be to request a move of
Category:Romanian publishers to
Category:Romanian publishers (people), and to request deletion of
Category:Romanian landowners - it's not an intrinsic characteristic, and they're not notable for owning land (unlike aristocrats). (At least one of them isn't notable for anything, but that's another story.) Subsequently, we should move to delete some of those articles. (I wonder if
this will grow to encompass Adam and Eve, and if
he has read
WP:V.)
Also, any thoughts on
these
two sterile edit wars? I'm willing to let go of the dates at the first one (though I really don't see why), but what he's doing to the template seems rather odd, along with his edit summaries. -
Biruitorul
Talk
04:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all, and I hope you resolve whatever came up. The only semi-urgent matter lies just above this line. Alternate hook welcome, as well as perhaps a more balanced portrayal of his Communist-era activities, if needed, or any other improvements. But verification is the priority, as always. - Biruitorul Talk 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
still need to be redirected and possibly merged! Well, enough of a to-do list for now. See you later. - Biruitorul Talk 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Dahn.I need some advice: my information sources are people who have been personally involved in the events or people who know/have directly known such people. One source has agreed to be named: dr. Egon Balas, professor at Carnegie-Mellon University. You can google dr. Balas. How does one use such references? One option is to first publish a paper and then use it a reference! Thanks, Peterkecs ( talk) 23:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying sooner. Yes, I will try and IPA those articles. I must admit though that with some names I have doubts as to how they are pronounced, and it's very hard to find sources on that. There is no Romanian dictionary that gives name pronunciation (none that I know of, anyway), so in those cases if I'm lucky enough I will find a documentary or an interview on YouTube, otherwise I'll just have to give up.
In the early days of Wikipedia the pronunciation was indeed sometimes indicated in the style you mentioned (meer-CHE-ah, etc.), but this was not considered professional enough and now IPA seems to be the only accepted way. I can do the English pronunciation too, when there is a very widespread English version of a Romanian name. Again, I will need to know it or hear it. I know there is a name pronunciation guide somewhere on the internet, but I found several mistakes so I wouldn't consider that a reliable source.
Regarding Tristan Tzara, see User talk:Kwamikagami#Tzara IPA.
Cheers. — Adi Japan 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dahn. Do you know anything about this report. I'm interested with a view to overhauling or removing completely this section. The whole thing seems so subjective as to be beyond analysis from an NPOV perspective. (I may not be able to reply to you for some time). Regards. RashersTierney ( talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Left you a short reply at my place. Best. RashersTierney ( talk) 22:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 (
c| s 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Sorry, I should have first commented on the talk page and then make change in the article. I agree with your comment, but ... you did not say what issues. It would be more constructive to add these tags section-wise and sentence-wise, where they can be addressed. Please, I would really appreciate if you do so. Otherwise nobody would address the issues. You see that many issues are not addressed even when they are spelled out, and you want them addressed when you don't even say exactly what they are. I do realize that would be a lot of work, but that would also be very constructive, and I've known you as that kind of editor. Dc76\ talk 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject DYK 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)The
June 2009 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)
21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join WikiProject TRANSWIKI and join the sub language project of your choice. The aim is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from other wikipedias by language and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge between other wikipedias. I will create a specific Romanian group later if you are interested? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/Romanian has been started. The project is intended to be a loose organization of wikipedians whose work often involves translating articles from Romanian. Your presence would be greatly needed. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No you've got the wrong idea. I am well aware of some of the flaws in Romanian wiki and the idea is NOT to translate unreferenced articles which may be riddled with POV and well just be awful. If you think this is my idea I'm disappointed that you also don't think I am intelligent to exercise caution in such a project. The idea is that the project identifies what is missing and then manual editors in collaboration with wikiprojects and more informed individuals such as yourself for Romani for example decide what is notable and then start the article but using Reliable sources from elsewhere. In reagrds to Romanian wiki this would especially be the case because from what I've seen very few of its articles are of a good enough quality for here. The project is as much about drawing up a notable list of missing articles than it is creating articles andthe whole reason why I proposed the project was to improve the quality of transwikiying by using reliable sources to back up content for that very reason that lesser informed individuals working independently may create exactly the sort of rubbish articles that you loathe. This is exactly why an editor such as yourself would be needed to ensure that poor content is NOT transferred and to make a judgement on what or what is suitable as indeed to what article is notable by using reliable sources away from Romanian wiki. We may be able to generate a list of missing notable articles but if the equivalent articles on Romanian wiki are shoddy then they will not be translated, they will be created using reliable sources. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand how you see things now. I also find it laudible how you feel you must turn every article you create into what reads as a top class article with a tremendous amount of information. Ideally of course we want every article on Romania and any other like this. The problem I see is that we are missing a tremendous amount of articles which if written properly many of them would be of major importance added to wikipedia and our coverage. As you said the main problem in tackling a high number of red links is quality. I believe a stub if it contains some major facts and is reliably referenced is a progression, you on the otherhand would rather then article didn't exist until it was above a start class. I understand, that is often an ongoing dilemna that I face in that I want to trandfer as many articles as possible but I also wish every article could be started as a really good article each time. Maybe your approach is not compatible with such a project. Anyway,your work on Romanian literature articles has always been greatly appreciated as well as your presence on here even if you are not interested in the new project. Regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Great to have you back! I know the Tzara episode was highly frustrating (at least I got an absurd {{unreferenced}} tag off the biography), and I kept drafting a message to ask you to return, as recently as two days ago. Luckily, you've spared me that task.
1. Categories now exist: time to fill them up!
2. Not that much happened during your break, although it's spreading! And: guess who? Oh, and that thrilling debate is back -- stand by. Ah, and Social structure of Romania... (Also, did you take note of the recent additions to the Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu article?)
3. Unfortunately, Şubă is likely to remain Suba for the time being, given this debate. Troubling, but that's that. I guess Moţoc is notable and expandable, but given this (diacritics used everywhere else), it may just be her name is Motoc.
4. Very interesting and worth pursuing, if at all possible, this notion of an African empire for Romania, but as you say, Romania itself was somewhat of an imperial possession, not to mention Dobrogea (I linked to an article on that once, but seem to have lost the link).
5. I agree the Fototeca name is ungrammatical, and will support any effort to change it. Speaking of original research: can we say this is a Lipovan? - Biruitorul Talk 16:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
On a much lighter note, I see the following are still redlinks:
Elena Udrea,
Elena Băsescu,
Maria Băsescu,
Mona Muscă,
Raluca Turcan,
Ecaterina Andronescu,
Miron Mitrea,
Viorel Hrebenciuc,
Victor Babiuc,
Răzvan Theodorescu,
Octav Cozmâncă,
Ludovic Orban,
Sorin Ovidiu Vântu and, best of all,
Ristea Priboi. I once tried to write Maria Băsescu's biography, but didn't get very far. Oh, and how about
Disappearance of Elodia Ghinescu? If she were British, she'd surely have an article, but as I like to say, we're an encyclopedia, not tabloid trash, so it's just as well she doesn't.
By the way, considering the unexpected source,
this is a surprisingly fresh account. It does, frustratingly, skip over some important stuff (like 1957-65 -- but hey, we skip 1954-65), but it may be something to hold on to. -
Biruitorul
Talk
03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
One further point: not the belabor the subject, but I'm sure this will be of some interest. - Biruitorul Talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I've replied there, although not in quite such a lengthy manner as yours. 84.13.166.159 ( talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You should perhaps report this bug. It would imporve the bot. Dc76\ talk 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow! What have I gotten myself into? I had a suspicion that when I started those edits I would get into trouble. Here's what I was after: the articles as written (excluding the info boxes) did not clarify how long the ţinuturi lasted. To me as a curious reader, I felt that was an obvious gap that needed to be closed. I did not realize the political complexity of it all, however. Given your obvious knowledge, may I suggest you tackle the corrections? I think you'll do a better job. If you want me to check for clarity, let me know! cheers! Verne Equinox ( talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree there is a lot of xenophobic and POV crap included in many Romani related articles, and I hope my pedantic chippings at minor issues is not an irritant. Like yourself, I do also see the bigger picture and would like better cooperation between like-minded editors with whom I may have differences of opinion on relatively minor issues but generally agree with when it comes to 'the big picture'. I think there should be more discussion here. RashersTierney ( talk) 01:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried to create an article about actual romanian territory and the impact that the Mongol invasion had. If you want reference read ro:Invazia mongolă din 1241 şi ţările române. As you have mentioned my grammar seems "unworthy" of english wikipedia but as worse as my grammar seems to be there is nothing funny about this article! You do a better article! There is a good article for reference here http://www.rocsir.usv.ro/archiv/2004_1-2/2VioletaEpure2004.pdf ♫ Razool —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC).
Hello! Sorry not to react immediately. Modifying the article, was not malicious from my side. To tellthe truth I have double interest to keep the information I felt to delete.
For the picture: you might be right from the point it is the main church, but on the other side the picture does not show the whole church (not the most fortunate one), only the middle and the church itself is architecturally not the most beautiful one (19th century, not imposant, better than the concrete one on the bottom, but still for teh main picture I think some "romantic" would be better). Therefore I replaced with the one I selected. I hope I convince you as well.
For the info for the Hungarian kings and Catholic legends, I am neutral, on one hand I like to advertise Hungarian historical facts, but on the other hand, if I look at the topic and protestant reality saints have not much to do in this article.
So my intention was not at all against you and I appreciate your efforts in the topic, I hope for the pic I convinced you,
have a nice day, -- Vargatamas ( talk) 12:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The
January 2009 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)
03:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you know who "Cînde" is, listed as a Romanian poet here in this Wiki list [1]? I couldn't find out online. A from L.A. ( talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I haven't forgotten about the WikiProject, but I'm waiting for someone else to add more to it and to help it get started. I'm not into symbolist literature nearly as much as I was ten years ago, and I was never much into what is called symbolist painting. I like art nouveau, but even that is a lot of old school stuff that I only look back on sometimes. My taste in painting is pretty modern. A from L.A. ( talk) 19:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I took no offence, I think we're entirely in agreement on the issue of the ahnentafels. I'll wait a little bit to see if anyone else weighs in, but I'd be happy to join a campaign against them, in FAs particularly.
The family tree is a different matter though; I created that myself. It is not there to present new information, but to give a graphical representation of something that can be very difficult to understand through text alone, particularly for readers not intimately familiar with the subject. Tables like this are very common in academic publications. Lampman ( talk) 15:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dahn, I know that this is a pain now that you've commented extensively on the category talk page, but prior to your comments I didn't think there was much hope of generating further comment there, so I went ahead and made a formal CfD nomination for discussion of the issues raised there. The link is here is you'd like to make comments there (perhaps some cutting and pasting to duplicate your comments is in order): Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_15#Anglicans_parent_category_(-ies). Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like you to take another look at this issue. It is not as simple as it seems and we currently have a tree where Roman Catholic articles end up in a subcategory of Protestantism. Please take another look at this. -- Secisek ( talk) 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
We currently have articles such as Pastoral Provision, Anglican Use and Book of Divine Worship which concern the Roman Catholic Church which are presently in a subcat of Protestantism. -- Secisek ( talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
They are related to both but none of those subjects should be in a sub cat of Protestantism - and one small change corrects this. -- Secisek ( talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. But too much imagination is also no good: history is a discipline, a subject, whatever you want, but not a science! :-) I'm not going to touch your edit, though. Dc76\ talk 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I found a: quote: legendary art dealer, Ileana Sonnabend, born October 28th, 1914 in Bucharest. Currently her article redirects to Leo Castelli. Do you think we should give her her own article? Seems like something you'd be interested in. A from L.A. ( talk) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
X-D Oh, that's priceless. No, that's perfectly fine, although I was a bit confused at first. Best of luck getting your clocks set the right way! (by the way, it's currently 11:30 PM US Eastern, and 4:30 AM GMT ;-) ) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 04:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If that's your secret plan, I'd like more of it, please :) DYK is a cool place, it's a good opportunity for interesting but not-yet-rated articles to appear easily on the Main Page. That said, I think your stuff should have some kind of automatic FA status, I felt weird assessing such detailed, well-sourced, high-quality content for the modest DYK ;) Keep it up and all the best, Todor → Bozhinov 07:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Your article has been put in queue to appear on the main page. It is currently in Queue 5 and should appear on the Main Page in the morning. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Might I suggest self reverting? That was your
4th revert in 24 hours and so you are liable to be blocked otherwise. --
Narson ~
Talk •
12:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right about the authorship, which I've fixed. For the rest, would it be possible for you to go ahead with the edits and show me more clearly what you'd like done? I'm sure it'll be agreeable, but I'm also going to be away for a few days and I may as well leave the matter in trusted hands. - Biruitorul Talk 06:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thought: looking at Florentina Mosora, I kept wondering if any improvement was possible, and then I realised: this should be held up as a model of how not to write an article. - Biruitorul Talk 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking, if you need a break from Ion, The Other One could use some attention too :) But with so many news articles on him in recent days, I should be able to handle this myself. By the way, have you seen Ethnic flag?? Even if we buy that the flag of Romania represents ethnic Romanians as well as the country Romania, North Koreans? I wasn't aware that all Japanese are represented by this flag, or that this one represents the Vietnamese. And do "Anglo-Africans" really attach much importance to this flag, last used 99 years ago? And why does a 1485 flag better represent the Portuguese than the one used since 1911? And, if we're going to talk about ethnic flags, where is an ethnic flag par excellence, this one? So many questions on this front... - Biruitorul Talk 15:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
1) We now know who Anonimu is! 2) This is getting annoying; it's too bad how one determined user can hold up consensus like that. - Biruitorul Talk 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The
February 2009 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)
21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The
February 2009 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)
21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am back, but I will mostly make maps, since I do not have time to edit articles like before. Anyway, thank you for your welcome. PANONIAN 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on the WP Symbolism & Art Nouveau template but I don't like how it looks. I'm going to try to make it look nicer on my own, but if you want to help. Alex ( talk) 20:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right that I was bending the definition of fair-use... However, regarding the "low resolution", I'm still saying the image is low resolution, because it is has a size of 242 x 320 pixels, compared to the original which has 966 x 1280 pixels. Regarding the "adequately give the same information" part, I *could* argue that this picture provides more information than the old picture (it represents the subject more accurately; for example, you can see that he has a mole under the right eye), but I won't, because I agree that's a silly argument.
I guess that in the back of my mind, the reason that pushed me to add this picture is that the old one is marked PD, but has no author information (therefore we cannot know for sure that the author of the picture died more 70 years ago), we do not know where it was first published (so we cannot know for sure if the Romanian copyright law applies, or the US law, or other laws). I was adding this image with full source information, and I guess I was sub-consciously thinking that the old image may not be *really* PD, so the images *may* have the same copyright status, but the new image has a better quality and complete source information.
Therefore I will propose this image to be deleted, letting others to have the final words on this one. Razvan Socol ( talk) 06:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the WikiProject who is Running for coordinator (cross your fingers on my bid for coordinator) it is always great to see someone else who shares your same opinion (that we don't need a C-Class). Keep up the Good Work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI: It has no content (so I don't know how it could possibly enhance the article), and has been spammed cross-wiki. It's now blacklisted. — Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 20:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"Dahn", aveti aerul ca sinteti la curent... Si dumneavoastra anonim, din pacate... Nu inteleg, totusi, de ce atita ura si obstinatie in a scoate linkul catre situl lui Fondane? Situl va fi activ peste putin timp. Nu credeti ca ar fi mai bine - daca tot aveti acces la interfata - sa corectati acel "Barbu" de pe pagina romana, unde ceilalti utilizatori nu au acces? Chiar nu inteleg de ce atita incrincenare. Toate paginile lui Fondane, in toate limbile, sint prost facute, cu greseli... Iar, cind incepe cineva sa lucreze la ele, primul lucru pe care il fac unii este sa le vandalizeze, sa scoata linkurile si asa mai departe. Trist. 213.233.103.74 ( talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Luiza Palanciuc
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You recently started a discussion for deletion of the Template:Eastern Bloc defection because it was too long.
This was an easily fixable issue, and a discussion on the Talk page would have alerted others to the length issue. It was, for example, about as short as the tangentially related Template:Cold War, and I had no idea length was an issue to anyone and had, myself, continued to expand the Template accordingly.
If, when a fixable issue arises, you discuss an issue first on the talk page, it will avoid deletion, followed by starting another article with the same material, only the issues in the deletion discussion fixed. Mosedschurte ( talk) 14:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
In Template:Eastern Bloc defection. That's pretty much bordering on vandalism.
If you have an issue with some not being descriptive enough, please alter the description, don't delete all of them. Mosedschurte ( talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Mosedschurte and Dahn - stop responding to each other. Whatever the original incident, you're just arguing back and forth here and being disruptive. Stop responding and let some uninvolved administrators review and get back to you with more feedback.
If you continue pushing each others' buttons, a short block to prevent further disruption and rude behavior may be required. Please don't do that - let us review, ask you some questions on your talk pages, let things calm down now.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Meanwhile, I'm happy to report no trouble with the other village mergers, the one exception being Galeş. Its creator is the author of the YouTube videos linked, and tenaciously defends the article. Ideally, my version of Sălişte will be restored and the redirect protected by someone, because for now at least, there's no stopping him.
2. An odd ruling from the FA director: even if the site is an RS (dubious), their blog certainly isn't.
3. We may have to rethink it if he gets elected (or even gets into the second round, or becomes PM). There's also Mihai Antonescu, though I'd say Ion is clearly still the primary usage.
4. By the way, since you asked before, there is a trickle of news sources on the nPCR: [4], [5], [6] and the Nepecerişti (a different party): [7].
5. "Politics is the art of the possible." I'm sure there are better ways of presenting the information (plus I wish there was more on 1969-89), but I can almost guarantee it'd survive AfD in the current form: "look! Sources! Notable!" Just look at the way this is headed: agreements signed, leaders had a meeting -> notable! - Biruitorul Talk 16:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, there was still a Sima, but a Sima in control of a very fractured Guard, one that perhaps the brilliant minds heading the state could have found ways to exploit the divisions of. It seems individual Romanians are endlessly being co-opted and abandoning principles at the drop of a hat (democrats to fascists, fascists to communists, communists to fascists to democrats...); in retrospect, Călinescu's mistake seems to have been not backing (tacitly) the elder Codreanu rather than going after the Guard as a whole. Plus, had the Patriarch and senior bishops been induced to speak out forcefully against the Guard in the fall of 1940 (which I'm sure could have been arranged), that too might have sapped its strength. And even if part of the Guard were being persecuted, I don't think Hitler would have cared that much as long as the oil kept flowing (and, say, overflight rights) - indeed, maybe Maniu could have arranged to send Guard members (and Saxons & Swabians) en masse to the front, killing two birds with one stone...
I'd actually
removed the blog source when he reverted me; if he still doesn't see the problem, I don't know if I should press the matter.
No, I didn't know about the NPCR article. I can't say quite what the opposition was thinking in '44 - certainly '40 was on their minds at least, but after about '37, and certainly after '44, they strike me as a rather passé, disoriented bunch pursuing illusory scenarios (see Argetoianu). Infinitely preferable to the PCR, of course, just not really "with it".
I think the relations articles may be headed toward some sort of guideline. Anyway, it's good that at least a few people see things the way we do. -
Biruitorul
Talk
21:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Indians in Romania - an AfD candidate? - Biruitorul Talk 18:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I've mentioned him to you before, but today, I had to laugh as I looked at the photo of Toma George Maiorescu. I like how part of the article is in Romanian. But hey, Renate Weber also has a nice resume up (written by her press officer), and so does Sarsembaev, Marat Aldangorovich (written by one User:Данияр СМ), but at least that one's up for deletion. (Weber is of course notable; we just shouldn't be hosting her PR materials.) - Biruitorul Talk 16:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, a Happy Easter to you, Dahn. Ah, and it gets even better: "Este o rusine de om , un excrement a lui Iliescu si al FSNului a carui sluga a fost aducand prejudicii majore cauzei democratiei romanesti de dupa "revolutie"." Could even qualify for speedy deletion, but it's absolutely good for AfD. Pretty soon I'll have more time and be able to write some more, but while I'm still in this anti-silly bilaterals crusade, this strikes me as even more absurd than Romania-Armenia: apparently, one need not even be a state to conduct bilateral relations today. Who knew? (Well, of course the PLO used to do it, Abkhazia does it - but in this case there's no doubt the Dutch government is the one conducting the relations.) - Biruitorul Talk 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Bravo on the latest barrage of devastating logic (which, alas, is having difficulty penetrating through); this is also bound to be of interest to you. - Biruitorul Talk 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Dahn, I'm not sure which category you were referring to re. the Christian Rakovsky article (I think it was my inclusion of the category "Romanian politicians"). Since Rakovsky did run for Parliament in Romania according to the article, I thought that the categorization would be appropriate. I also cleaned up one or two grammatical mistakes and added a couple of other obviously relevant categories and put what there was in alphabetical order (there must be over 40 categories for the Rakovsky page, so I thought sorting them out might be more user-friendly than making people scan for five minutes before adding or removing a relevant or irrelevant one). Not sure why you reverted, but since you're watching the article, I'll stick with your judgment in either case.
Thanks, 166.203.0.99 ( talk) 22:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Biruitorul Talk 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The
March 2009 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)
02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Dahn! I made here a proposal for renaming. Cheers! -- Olahus ( talk) 10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Something has to be done with the article Latin Europe. I noticed you have been involved with the article, and have pointed out some issues with it. Isnt there a wikigroup dedicated to rewritting this disgraceful article. I have a good understanding on the subject, and am willing to offer my services. -- Lucius Sempronius Turpio ( talk) 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not personal, but please discuss the changes in the talk page. I'm only trying to avoid the weasel wording (as "rarely") and it's true that the terms Moldovan and Moldavian are overlapping. Besides, the moldovans, as an ethnic group are recognized only in states that belonged to the former Soviet Union. Regards, -- Olahus ( talk) 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
∗ \ / ( ⁂) 07:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've reverted your redirect here. As I see that you yourself have been arguing, Latin Europe is not the same as the countries in Europe who speak a Romance language (otherwise Romania and Moldova would have been included). The "Romance-speaking Europe" article is therefore helpful to distinguish the two (as well as the table being somewhat useful). If you still disagree, please can we discuss before reverting again. Cheers. Lingamondo ( talk) 09:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be the polite police, but I think that calling the the edit of the family's origin vandalism is a bit harsh and does not assume WP:GF. The line as it appears now is a bit awkward and does not aptly explain why "South Slav" "Bulgarian and "aromanian" are all used when the last appears to describe the first two. I have no idea what the correct term is or why there are so many descriptions about their origin, but I can see why aromanian would be used since it appears to encompass all 3. I don't know enough to support the previous change, but I do know it is within the bounds of good faith. Mrathel ( talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What seems to be your problem!? What are your motivations on pretending like Romania isn't a part of Latin Europe!?
Why is it that important to you to keep up false pieces informations on the Wikipedia page? I really don't understand what your problem is! -- Pletet ( talk) 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi! How are you? I am working on the article of the heading, and I was wondering if you have any sources about the following paragraph of the article:
I am trying to research, prood-read it, and cite it, but on-line sources are not so helpful. So, I was wondering if you have any sources, dealing with these events, in order to check the accuracy of the above thread.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't intend to break WP:SYNTH here. Can you reformulate the article in a way that doesn't break this rule? -- Olahus ( talk) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if you would include the U.S.S.R. as part of the Communist Bloc, or if you were referring specifically to the Eastern Bloc/Satellite States. (Odd really I never thought of it, I suppose the U.S.S.R. wouldn't call it the Eastern Bloc, being on their west and all that.)
Anyway, the coverage of U.S.S.R./Russia's involvement in the Egypt article seems to me extremely sketchy (two mentions of "soviet" and none of "Russia", and that in relation to the Six Day War. But Russia had a big hand in e.g. building the Aswan High Dam and providing lots of lovely roubles and nice weapons.
I should probably try to expand this a bit in the Egypt article myself, I lived there a couple of years so I know a bit about it but I don't have much in the way of reliable sources, if I did that and you proceeded with the eastern bloc & third world overview then you could simply refer to it, one way or another (include a summary or see also or main or whatever is most appropriate). What do you think?
I suppose this is also assuming you consider that Egypt is, or rather at least until 1970ish when they booted the U.S.S.R. out WAS, third world. I don't think that's an unreasonable definition but perhaps you were thinking more specifically about sub-saharan Africa or something?
There's probably quite some interest with the Communist Bloc and Libya too, and perhaps Algeria-- I don't know much about those. Certainly I think what you propose would make a good article.
BTW nomenclature: I was always told that the Communist Bloc was the "second world" and the "third world" was what we were taught. Now it's "developing nations" or some codswallop, which seems unnecessarily vague (as if first world nations aren't developing too) and the "western world" or similar, whereas most of the states in the "western world" are in the Eastern Hemisphere. To my mind, "first", "second", "third" world" are just much better when describing the political get-up, which of course is what this would be about. If existing definitions are unsatisfactory they can either be changed or, if there is resistance, narrower definitions placed in the article — I have done that in the past just to avoid needless repetition throughout, and it seems to raise few objections providing one isn't defining black as white.
Best wishes, let me know your thoughts. SimonTrew ( talk) 07:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
(:I don't know where you prefer replies so I will do it here, quoting you where necessary.)
Question, Dahn. Is there any good link you see between these two? I'm not that interested in a DYK on them, but if I can do one, why not? Guşă is the godfather of Şandru's daughter, but I doubt that cuts it. Maybe the fact that one now works for the PSD, and the other wanted to join them recently, despite their serious criticisms of it in the past?
Anyway: who knew? Seriously. This is outrageous, as is this, and this only slightly less so. But with the willful determination to throw in all the trivia one can find, it's to be expected. - Biruitorul Talk 03:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem at all. I actually have a somewhat interesting DYK hook on, of all people, Radu Berceanu. As I was writing on him, he seemed the exemplar of a post-'89 apparatchik - plain-looking, low-key, relatively uncontroversial, local party boss, stays just out of sight in his fiefdoms (the Ministry and the Dolj party apparatus), amassing a nice bank account in the process - but then the Securitate dossier caught my eye. So, if you could go just above this and, if all checks out, verify that hook, I'd much appreciate it. - Biruitorul Talk 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
" Grey market transactions" is precise if a bit verbose; speculation doesn't carry quite the same connotations as it did in Communist countries; smuggling, trafficking and bootlegging sound rather too dramatic. It looks like a few terms more or less hit the mark, but none (at first glance) quite precisely. - Biruitorul Talk 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries there, and I'm glad you finally got a chance to see it. My own attention has drifted away from that area: after all, how does one counter arguments like these? Much more interesting to write about people with unfortunate hunting accidents. By the way: note the obvious hole in his official CV (1981-1991): I know "economic adviser" in the Church has "Securitate" stamped all over it (especially when working under Nicolae Corneanu), but a) isn't he aware of Google, and that the press is bound to pick up on these things? b) vehemently denying one's involvement but then conveniently hiding a decade in an official résumé would tend to raise more questions than answers, I'd think. - Biruitorul Talk 18:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Dahn, may I ask you to intervene here, lest I be accused of revert-warring? Not that the prior version was great, but it's in our interests to avoid another Csangos-like disaster. (This individual is in any case worth watching - the damage he's done to articles like Hungary (the history section...) is already palpable.) - Biruitorul Talk 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The
April 2009 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)
22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've put the recent rant on the talk page (and subsequent support of that position) up for discussion here. -- Narson ~ Talk • 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I'll leave the article as it is, but your edit summary is really rude.
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Reywas92 Talk 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The
May 2009 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)
22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For excellent arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists. Stifle ( talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Dahn. I see you've picked up on those systematic additions to Romani related articles. I don't see the pressing need for any of them and think they should go, but was waiting to see if others on the Project also saw it as unusual. RashersTierney ( talk) 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you please check, by Wiki rules in articles is used widely accepted names (in this case Romanian names) so there is no valid reason why Hungarian names should be prezent except on that city`s page. Thank you 79.114.47.213 ( talk) 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a rule Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) , under paragraph "Widely accepted name" where in this case is Romanian language. When used in article , any article it should use only Widely accepted name - Romanian names, when wikipedia redirects then can be used bilingual names of the city`s in Romania, Hungary or any other state. I hope this rule will be respected. What they are trying to do is to impose the Hungarian version of a name based on historical nostalgy and not on actual usage while providing no valid arguments. Regarding this article, (Laszlo Tokes), at the time he was born the city`s mentioned in the article were/are part of Romania. These is no valid reason why the Hungarian names should be present, in this case, other than Hungarian names added on the city`s page. Thank you.
79.114.47.213 (
talk)
12:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The offensive IP originates from a High School. If it's inflammatory behavior continues their access to wikipedia will have to be cut off. Hobartimus ( talk) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you call the Hungarian national hero, Vlach? And why did you remove the source? There was a source on the Catholic enciklopedia... You are vandal?
I known, that my english command of a language is not correct, but was expect, that what wrote in the article emphatic. The Vojk name not it seems Vlach name, some thurgh the territory (Wallachia), accordingly the Cumans also Wallachians along with the Vlachs and others nations. Doncsecz znánje 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replying - my irritation was at having to unexpectedly go through several already approved DYKs for what seemed relatively minor issues but I respect your views on this. Although, ... that Constantin Mille worked on the same organization as Constantin Rădulescu-Motru"? is not really comparable as (1) you have not mentioned the organization and (2) it is two names without any description for either. I don't believe I would ever submit a DYK as vague as this but if I did and it was problematic I am sure it would be changed either before or after posting. The bold link is the updated one, the one that attracts the eye, so anyone who clicks would realise the occupation, life details, etc. of the subject even if the fact in the hook is not expanded upon. Take the current set, the one which I find intriguing is - "that Rafael Palmeiro won the Gold Glove Award at first base in 1999 despite appearing in only 28 games at the position?" I have not a clue what this is about... what is this game/award or who is the person? Questions which are forming in my mind as I type. If I want to know I will have to click, otherwise I will remain lost in ignorance forever. I also have a terrible record of not knowing what is popular or unpopular and have discovered many of my DYKs are either more known or unknown than I could have known. The irony is that I aimed several of those DYKs at the tastes and knowledge of American readers (which I don't normally try to do) and yet they have drawn more comment than unsual... interesting all the same. I hope I have not offended and apologies if I have. -- can dle • wicke 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Very nice article. I knew you were the author before looking at its history. User:Dpotop
Hello Dahn! I really appreciate your advice and encouragement. I am working on the issue of references. Given the level of your knowledge, you seem to be a professional historian. Cheers, Peterkecs ( talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Why, my pleasure. And I look forward to seeing what you have coming down the pipeline. - Biruitorul Talk 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
My own inclination would be to request a move of
Category:Romanian publishers to
Category:Romanian publishers (people), and to request deletion of
Category:Romanian landowners - it's not an intrinsic characteristic, and they're not notable for owning land (unlike aristocrats). (At least one of them isn't notable for anything, but that's another story.) Subsequently, we should move to delete some of those articles. (I wonder if
this will grow to encompass Adam and Eve, and if
he has read
WP:V.)
Also, any thoughts on
these
two sterile edit wars? I'm willing to let go of the dates at the first one (though I really don't see why), but what he's doing to the template seems rather odd, along with his edit summaries. -
Biruitorul
Talk
04:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all, and I hope you resolve whatever came up. The only semi-urgent matter lies just above this line. Alternate hook welcome, as well as perhaps a more balanced portrayal of his Communist-era activities, if needed, or any other improvements. But verification is the priority, as always. - Biruitorul Talk 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
still need to be redirected and possibly merged! Well, enough of a to-do list for now. See you later. - Biruitorul Talk 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Dahn.I need some advice: my information sources are people who have been personally involved in the events or people who know/have directly known such people. One source has agreed to be named: dr. Egon Balas, professor at Carnegie-Mellon University. You can google dr. Balas. How does one use such references? One option is to first publish a paper and then use it a reference! Thanks, Peterkecs ( talk) 23:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying sooner. Yes, I will try and IPA those articles. I must admit though that with some names I have doubts as to how they are pronounced, and it's very hard to find sources on that. There is no Romanian dictionary that gives name pronunciation (none that I know of, anyway), so in those cases if I'm lucky enough I will find a documentary or an interview on YouTube, otherwise I'll just have to give up.
In the early days of Wikipedia the pronunciation was indeed sometimes indicated in the style you mentioned (meer-CHE-ah, etc.), but this was not considered professional enough and now IPA seems to be the only accepted way. I can do the English pronunciation too, when there is a very widespread English version of a Romanian name. Again, I will need to know it or hear it. I know there is a name pronunciation guide somewhere on the internet, but I found several mistakes so I wouldn't consider that a reliable source.
Regarding Tristan Tzara, see User talk:Kwamikagami#Tzara IPA.
Cheers. — Adi Japan 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dahn. Do you know anything about this report. I'm interested with a view to overhauling or removing completely this section. The whole thing seems so subjective as to be beyond analysis from an NPOV perspective. (I may not be able to reply to you for some time). Regards. RashersTierney ( talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Left you a short reply at my place. Best. RashersTierney ( talk) 22:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 (
c| s 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Sorry, I should have first commented on the talk page and then make change in the article. I agree with your comment, but ... you did not say what issues. It would be more constructive to add these tags section-wise and sentence-wise, where they can be addressed. Please, I would really appreciate if you do so. Otherwise nobody would address the issues. You see that many issues are not addressed even when they are spelled out, and you want them addressed when you don't even say exactly what they are. I do realize that would be a lot of work, but that would also be very constructive, and I've known you as that kind of editor. Dc76\ talk 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject DYK 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)The
June 2009 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)
21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join WikiProject TRANSWIKI and join the sub language project of your choice. The aim is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from other wikipedias by language and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge between other wikipedias. I will create a specific Romanian group later if you are interested? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/Romanian has been started. The project is intended to be a loose organization of wikipedians whose work often involves translating articles from Romanian. Your presence would be greatly needed. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No you've got the wrong idea. I am well aware of some of the flaws in Romanian wiki and the idea is NOT to translate unreferenced articles which may be riddled with POV and well just be awful. If you think this is my idea I'm disappointed that you also don't think I am intelligent to exercise caution in such a project. The idea is that the project identifies what is missing and then manual editors in collaboration with wikiprojects and more informed individuals such as yourself for Romani for example decide what is notable and then start the article but using Reliable sources from elsewhere. In reagrds to Romanian wiki this would especially be the case because from what I've seen very few of its articles are of a good enough quality for here. The project is as much about drawing up a notable list of missing articles than it is creating articles andthe whole reason why I proposed the project was to improve the quality of transwikiying by using reliable sources to back up content for that very reason that lesser informed individuals working independently may create exactly the sort of rubbish articles that you loathe. This is exactly why an editor such as yourself would be needed to ensure that poor content is NOT transferred and to make a judgement on what or what is suitable as indeed to what article is notable by using reliable sources away from Romanian wiki. We may be able to generate a list of missing notable articles but if the equivalent articles on Romanian wiki are shoddy then they will not be translated, they will be created using reliable sources. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand how you see things now. I also find it laudible how you feel you must turn every article you create into what reads as a top class article with a tremendous amount of information. Ideally of course we want every article on Romania and any other like this. The problem I see is that we are missing a tremendous amount of articles which if written properly many of them would be of major importance added to wikipedia and our coverage. As you said the main problem in tackling a high number of red links is quality. I believe a stub if it contains some major facts and is reliably referenced is a progression, you on the otherhand would rather then article didn't exist until it was above a start class. I understand, that is often an ongoing dilemna that I face in that I want to trandfer as many articles as possible but I also wish every article could be started as a really good article each time. Maybe your approach is not compatible with such a project. Anyway,your work on Romanian literature articles has always been greatly appreciated as well as your presence on here even if you are not interested in the new project. Regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)