User talk:Turgidson/Archive 1

On January 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexandru Nicolschi , 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Turgidson 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanian anti-communist resistance movement --Vintila Barbu 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Turgidson 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've added a number of links to participants, but you've also included some redlinks. Were you intending to write articles on them; did you (or Wikipedia) misspell the name; did you intentionally create redlinks, or am I missing some other plausible option. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Going through the list, I fixed various links, and added new ones to existing articles. But I also noted some glaring omissions, so I put some redlinks, as a marker (or reminder if you wish) that one should probably have articles about those people. Now, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (been at it for about a month and a half), so I'm not sure this is the correct procedure. I'm sort of thinking of adding articles on those people, but I'm not sure yet. So what's the right procedure in such a case? Turgidson 16:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You will excuse me for intervening (it is merely that I have your page on my watchlist, since you seemed to want to reply here), but I feel I should tell Arthur Rubin that there is nothing wrong in creating redlinks, and there is no need for them to be deleted or anything. From what I have noticed, some users have misinterpreted a vague (and new?) guideline, and they have probably never found the immense use that redlinks have in editing. One is not supposed to add relevant information only when available, and it is rather absurd to assume that wikipedia has covered all things essential and all redlinks are "trivial" until proven relevant. IMO, you did a great job, Turgidson, and there is no rule you have broken. Dahn 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Dahn. Actually, I've been wondering for a while what to do about these redlinks. I've seen them abused -- e.g., people ranmdomly putting wikilinks around any name that appears in an article. So I've been pretty careful not to do that, except in very select situations, where I really feel that the person in question deserves an article -- as a way of "flagging" things. But the above inquiry from Arthur Rubin made me nervous about my assumption, so I'd still like to hear his opinion, and possibly more about the subject, which seems to be of some importance, at least to me. Thanks again to both. Turgidson 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating redlinks in an inherently incomplete list (such as, for example, January 1) is questionable at best, and in violation of the instructions of those pages, anyway. However, even in a potentially complete list, such as this one, because of possible name conflicts, (and the fact that most people who create an article don't check the "what links here" page to see if anyone else is referring to it), I think that, unless someone is clearly notable, one shouldn't create a redlink to his name. If you're willing to monitor the article to make sure that the links are to the correct person, I have no objection to their inclusion, but I think that monitoring should be a real requirement for the creation of redlinks to persons' names. It's not in the Wikipedia guidelines, but it could harm the article to have redlinks mysteriously become blue by pointing to a different person's article.

It should be pointed out that my first edits to Wikipedia, as an anon, were correcting my name as it appeared in the article; IIRC, there were 3 "Arthur L. Rubin"'s and 1 "Arthur Rubin", which were all me. It should also be pointed out that I did not state that you were violating some rule, although I can see the implication. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, I will take them into due consideration. My feeling right now is that this whole thing is debatable. I would like to hear more opinions and/or feedback before solidifying my own opinion on the matter. In the meantime, as before, I will be very cautious in adding a redlink, and use the procedure only sparingly. Also, if you feel that any of the added redlinks on the Putnam page is not valid, please feel free to delete it (some were there before, and some of the previous redlinks I fixed, by redirecting them to the correct pages). And, oh, by the way, congratulations on having won the Putnam four times -- that 's quite a feat! Turgidson 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A follow-up -- one of those redlinks is gone: I created a stub for Roger Howe. Turgidson 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I think tend to agree more with Dahn than with Arthur Rubin on the potential usefulness of redlinks, at least when used judiciously. As a concrete example, in creating the stub for Roger Howe, I felt the need to put a link to his advisor, Calvin Cooper Moore [2]. I think this is a justified way to flag the need for a new page. One more example. In editing the page for Masaki Kashiwara, I realized he was a member of the French Academy of Sciences. I hesitated about creating a new category, but then, in looking for it, I realized there were already two "redlinks" to this category, so I went ahead and started it, at Category:Members of the French Academy of Sciences. Turgidson 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My thoughts exactly: it is rather like the magician trick where, if you pull the sheet away, all objects remain in their place (whereas removing redlinks is usually like taking all those objects, placing them aside, pulling the cloth away, then placing all objects in their original positions). As for redlinks with questioned usefulness: adding them is no different from adding irrelevant links or unwikified idiocies to any text. That is to say that nobody can prevent anyone from adding crap, and that the very same system of supervision and peer review will apply to all irrelevant additions (and, in case it does not apply, it simply means that no one is in the forest to listen to falling trees). Dahn 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Truly great work on that article. I had just discovered it before noon, and watchlisted it for later cleanup; in the evening, it's spotless! Dahn 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The subject deserves it -- I think he's a great director. Actually, it's rather amazing in hindsight that he did not rate an article (btw, there is none on ro.wiki!) I need to put this aside for a while, and get back to work on non-wiki stuff. But I still think the article could use quite a lot of improvements. Eg, a photograph (but it's almost impossible to find one that passes muster with wiki!), references in the text (but I'm not sure how best to organize that, I still need to learn what's the best way to do it, especially when the sources are so diverse), and perhaps some bulleted lists of plays directed, etc. So much to do, so little time.... Turgidson 21:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help in the future (I'll work with whatever system of references you decide to use). Dahn 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays. R.e.b. 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- I didn't know about the policy, but now that you pointed it out to me, I understand where it comes from. Also, I think I know what prompted this message, so I reverted the change in question. If there is anything else that needs to be done, please let me know (or simply go ahead and change it). Best, Turgidson 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just noticed your contribution to the list. I want to ask you: should we also include faculty who were alumni on the alumni list? I could go either way, but let me know what you think. Dahn 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know. For example, I made a comment about this issue at the

University of Leiden talk page -- Ideally, more opinions should come into play, before settling on a solution. In the meantime, I would reiterate my suggestion elsewhere: separate categories with faculty and alumni are needed for major Universities such as the one from Iaşi. Once those are in place, and respective links are established, the task would be easier, and more systematic. Makes sense? Turgidson

18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon further thought, yes, it seems logical to include people who were both alumni and faculty on both lists. I've seen it done elsewhere, come to think of it -- at Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, etc. (At Cambridge and Oxford, though, it's a bit different, and as for the University of Paris, it's very confusing, I find.) At any rate, take Dimitrie Gusti as a concrete example: he belongs to both lists, right? By the way George Pruteanu is listed as faculty, but I could not see that mentioned explicitly in the article (only in the Categories). If such list of faculty and/or alumni is to be done well, one should double-check the info, and make sure it's explicitly mentioned in the article about the respective person, I'd say. Turgidson 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree with your points, but I want to point out that listing is generally easier before categorizing (you end up with just one place from which to select cat entries, and red links stay there as reminders). My main reason for asking was so that I know if I should contribute to both (although it looks like you've currently covered most or even all such entries). About Pruteanu: yes, you're right; I'll remove him until further notice. Dahn 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I bit the bullett and started those 2 categories. I wouldn't do this for each and every University in Romania, but say, for Bucharest and Iasi (already done) and Cluj, plus a few others, I think it's worth it. By the way, I made a comment in this general area a while ago Talk:Dobruja#Byzantines_and_Bulgarians, but it surely was the wrong forum to address the issue. Is there a better venue to possibly start such a discussion? Turgidson 19:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We agree (including on the "not for each and every" issue). It is an interesting point you raise on the Dobruja page, but I think you should look at it from another perspective. As it is, info on natives and culture goes into articles on constituent cities of the region (let's face it, Tulcea County is not much to contemporary culture besides the city of Tulcea); I also think that is where readers expect it to be, and, given the centrist patterns of Romanian administrative geography, if we do not establish a level on which to expand the issue, we would risk duplicating the exact same info on concentric pages (region, county, city). Another thing to consider is that post-1918 cultural references shy away from any mentions of regions (which has left some consequences we would not be able to avoid - such as it becoming a tad ridiculous to refer to the contemporary culture of Wallachia, which is probably not the case of Dobruja or Transylvania). I would add a section on culture for all regions, but I would center it on historical tradition, ethnography, speech patterns et al, and less on universities and theaters (which I could detail in articles on respective cities). As to lists and categories for natives, in a previous discussion with Bogdan and Biruitorul, I raised the issue of creating a "tree" from cities to regions, through counties (eventually, a "List of natives of Dobruja" would be merely a collection of lists to natives of counties; the same for categories, mutatis mutandis). Dahn 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tulcea: Well, OK, but still, there is at least someone born there that I heard of: Grigore Moisil. Dobruja (well, I still think of it as Dobrogea): the point I was trying to make there was that the discussion was too much about historical minutiae (prompted I assume by various ethnic grudges, or whatnot), instead of whatever one could say its contributions to the wider world are in the here and now (or at least, in the past century or so). Which brought me to the fact that no University from that region is even mentioned -- deafening silence, as they say. Universities: I'm thinking of a list -- nothing complicated, to start with. I found one in that ref mentioned there, with some classification scheme which makes some sense. Tree of knowledge, with concentric circles and all the rest: that sounds too ambitious for me! That would be great for an encyclopedia, but it sounds like a year-long project to me, at the very least. Is there enough manpower (and/or willpower) for that? Turgidson 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tulcea: what I actually meant was that Tulcea County is not much beyond Tulcea City (where Moisil is from). Dobruja: it is best if we leave most information about it to the realm of history (although this goes into far too many details, and, last time I checked, needed serious copyediting for NPOV); we could establish a culture section, but info there ought to be mostly ethnographic and ethnocultural etc. (which is unlikely to feature in other articles, and which would be a nice and valuable addition, as well as consistent with the fact that, next to history, most present-day references are on ethnography); I would leave other info to be dealt with in articles on cities (consider that a mention about Ovidius Uni is likely to be made in the article on Constanţa, and that natives are about to be detailed there; in general, I avoid listing natives in articles on regions, unless the lists prove to be very short - otherwise, we have to either pointlessly drag a text that could be neatly folded into detailed sections on a tighter geographic level, or select just a few names for the overall list, which strikes me as POV - as a provisional solution in the Transylvania article, where Romanians and Hungarians were engaged in an idiotic battle over how many names of each community should be included, I simply moved it to

Talk:List of people from Iaşi, I'd have more interest in sorting them out. Dahn

20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Universities: there is one here, List of universities in Romania, but it's (a) far from complete, (b) more redlinks than bluelinks, (c) gives no sense of quality involved. I guess (a) and (b) can be fixed (with a lot of work for (b)), but (c) would surely be controversial. Still, methodology to do such rankings in a more-or-less objective fashion is being developed, see eg [3]. Could any of that info be used in wikipedia? Turgidson 20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good points. What I would do to reflect methodology is to fit them in a table in some [other] objective order (alphabet, city, etc), and list next to each other x rank awarded on y scale. Does this sound like a good idea? Dahn 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me. Couple of questions, though: would one start from the existing list on wiki, or from the one on ad-astra? I'd say the union of the two, just to make sure -- with the ones not ranked, well, not ranked (and, most likely, but not necessarily, redlinked). Second, is there a copyright issue here (in terms of using the info from that site)? I'd say no (looks public domain to me), but I'm not an expert at that... Turgidson 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I would alphabetize (order them irrespective of the ranking, and include the ranking for reference, with an _ or something for those not ranked). I'm don't know much about copyrights, but it looks like the content is freely mirrored, and that all you need is to link to the source. Dahn 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is convincing. I may try to do this at some point, but it will be rather time-consuming, so I would hate to spend the time and effort, only to have someone else duplicate it. I'm not sure what the best procedure is in such a case: should one start a stub, or should one work in a sandbox, or what? Also, btw, I put some somewhat-related comments in the Romania talk page, which were prompted in part by this discussion. Turgidson 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the sandbox. About the Romanians article: I am slowly but surely losing interest in that article; it has been hijacked by solicists and people with POVs, and there is little info in there that actually connects with the topic of the article (the History section, besides being a rant of cliches, actually relates to Romania and duplicates content; the format is chaotic; the overall feel is embarrassing). Nevertheless, the info you want to add, although it allows me to presume that you have an interesting meritocratic ideal, may be judged not to be of encyclopedic value (it may IMO, but the main problem I see is that it is subject to rapid change, more so than the overall numbers - think about Romanians in Italy and Spain, where demographics are likely to go berserk every now and then). Dahn 21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will try the sanbox -- haven't tried it yet. As for the Romania talk page, I've tried to get the discussion back to something hopefully more meaningful. If it doesn't work, oh well. And, as for the fact that those numbers are fleeeting -- yes, good point. One should focus on longer-term trends, not on snapshots, at least in the context of an encyclopedia. But still, one should also take into account what's "relevant"--it's a balancing act. The fact that Romania produces an educated class of people, a significant proportion of which chooses to go elsewhere, is significant, I think. Maybe a proper place to describe the situation, and put it in a wider context, would be at

Romanian Education System, which is in rather poor shape right now, I think (though Healthcare in Romania is even in worse shape). Turgidson

22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (On the issue of the "Education System" article, I remember walking by it, noticing the fact that the title broke wikipedia rules on capitalizations, glancing through it for 5 seconds, my eye starting twitching, and ultimately giving up. If you say the "Healthcare" one is worse, I can't even convince myself to click the link.) Dahn 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having some trouble with the alumni category: looks like I also created a separate page (not a category) by mistake. Is there a way to delete it? Turgidson 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Done (there were other ways to deal with it, but redirect struck me as the best one to use). Dahn 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Multi-tasking is too confusing, sometimes.  :) Turgidson 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep :). It has happened to all of us at some point or another. Dahn 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I recently bumped into

Omigosh! This is quite a mess. Maybe one can extract some useful info from it, and merge it with something existing, like

Romanian Education System, whcih is not much better, but at least has some nice pics. Turgidson

16:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help at Castelseprio. The other version supported by the other user was truly awful. I started to wonder if he had even opened a serious encyclopedia in his life... Good work. --Attilios 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome -- any time. Turgidson 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I added some references to

You wrote: "if one wants to engage in a polemic about IASPS, I think that should be done in a separate article, not here."[4] I wholly agree with you, and that has always been my principle in other articles. In this case, however,

Thanks for reviewing the article about Birlic. Mulţumesc. --Roamataa 09:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my point in Alexandru Nicolschi article, in Securitate article some people want to keep mentioning that he was Romanian, I don't see how could that be non-POVish taking into considerations that:

1. He was not born in Romania, he was born in imperial Russia.
2. He was Jew at least from father side.
3. He had Soviet citizenship at the time he entered Romania, and he entered Romania with forged acts to spy against Romania.

If he later on got Romanian citizenship that's something of no consequence and probably not worthy to be mentioned in the context of "who was actually a Romanian born in Bessarabia" which is misleading. -- AdrianTM 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to say, since I haven't edited the page on the Securitate, just the one on Alexandru Nicolschi. I remember though being confronted with a similar question when starting the page for Nicholschi, sometimes in late December. I used at the time the info coming from the Sighet Museum ("The position of Director of D.G.S.P. was entrusted to Gheorghe Pintilie (Pantelei Bodnarenko, of Ukrainian origin), who held the rank of General-Lieutenant, while two other Soviet agents were named Deputy Directors, Alexandru Nicolschi (Boris Grünberg, NKVD officer since 1940, from Basarabia) and Vladimir Mazuru (Ukrainian, born in Northern Bukovina) who received the rank of Major General"), but left out the details about ethnic origin, etc. In the present version of the article, this still is the case. Now, how would this apply to the other page you mention, I'm not quite sure, but the facts you lay out seem well established, and accepted by all editors (yes?). So perhaps it's "just" a matter of striking the right balance between saying too little, and dwelling too much on this or that. I know it's easier said than done, but I hope it can be worked out. Turgidson 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson thanks for supporting keeping the article Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation. I am also partial to Hanson - I love his explanation of how infantry can withstand cavalry, and his evolution of Roman Legions to Frankish levies. I also loved his analysis of how the Umayyads were able to destroy 2 giant empires on three continents in less than 100 years before Martel put a stop to them, along with the Bzyantines. (and you are right on more battles needing inclusion, especially Lepanto!) I think this article, which I did not write, needs a lot of work, but that the effort to end it is because of POV issues rather than a legitimate need for deletion. Shoot, trying to wrap it into European history would just leave that even longer! old windy bear 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure -- no problemo! I'm here to help: still kind of new, and feeling my way around. Although I haven't touched this subject (yet), the discussion about "Macrohistorical battles" piqued my curiosity. It's the first time I heard the word, but after seeing the Hanson mention, I remembered reading a nice article by him on this very subject, and that's what clinched it for me. By the way, and in another vein -- another article of Hanson that stuck in my mind was the one about Xenophon's Anabasis. What a gripping story! Turgidson 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanson was also the kicker for me, ironically. I have his book Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power plus a number of his articles. If you have not read the book, you should, because you will love it! He uses the article on Tours/Poitiers to explain why Frankish infantry was able to stop Islamic cavalry, and the evolution of the infantry in the west from the Greek Hopolites to the Roman Legions, to the Frankish freedman levies. It is fascinating! old windy bear 12:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Living for the most time in Munich, I think I know what a good beer means. However, I wouldn't be that arrogant not to enjoy ABA whenever circumstances demand it. --Vintila Barbu 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Haven't tasted

India Pale Ale, where one can actually taste the hops. Of course, Belgian beer (for example, Leffe) is also very interesting, and full of tradition. But, when it comes to Stella Artois, I actually liked better the one brewed in Cluj -- quite crisp, better mountain water, perhaps? I could go on and on the subject, so I better stop -- or write an article about it! Turgidson

20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, next time when you come to München, Bayern or Schwarzwald just let me know on [email protected], if possible a couple of days in advance.--Vintilă Barbu 12:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Check this image Image:Valter_Roman.gif. It seems the US "fair use" is applied as a Wiki policy too. For a portrait I think you also should resize to a lower resolution/quality (if it's the case). Daizus 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

However

here, such photos are not listed (though there's a section of "publicity photos" but I'm not sure if it covers our case), though "for identification" criterion is present as one. I wonder if the "free use" rationale defends also a "need" to illustrate important people in the recent history. Daizus

09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Though you seem quite far from suffering from any form of “authorship syndrome”, I’am taking precautions and asking your opinion about nominating just AdrianTM for having expanded Paul Goma in the last 5 days, knowing that you too have some significant edits there. I hope you don’t get it wrong. --Vintilă Barbu 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead -- he's put in yeoman work on it. I'll be on a wikibreak for a few days. Take care, Turgidson 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Done: Marius Oprea. Khoikhoi 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Turgidson 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Necessary corrections such as this one and this one could easily lead to not entirely unfounded suspicions that Dahn is in fact an idiot :D. My defense is rather shabby, I guess: while in the latter case I was reading Deletant's opinion and it originally seemed that Hungary did not have lustration (which lead me to split the text into "Czechia, Poland... and Hungary", forgetting to the details when I looked closer), the former is just me not having a sense of proportions. Anyway, this was mainly to thank you again for being such a careful editor. Cheers, Dahn 14:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had also seen the 18,000 km² bit, and thought it was quite odd, but I was not 100% sure what the correct unit of measure should apply, so I waited for someone else to catch and fix it. But for the second bit, there were no ifs or buts, so I went ahead. While at it, one comment: good idea to create Category:Romanian Revolution of 1989. I was led to the article about the Proclamation of Timişoara from a different article (on Mad Forest), which also links to this category. Any way to further populate the category? I am not quite sure what the temporal boundaries are -- Timişoara pushes them to March 1990; would, e.g., the Golaniad, from May 1990, still fit into the aftermath of December 1989? Turgidson 15:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting questions. The idea for the cat is actually Joe's (well, to quote Arghezi, I could have maid such a nail, but I didn't think about it). Since, as we stand, I'm not touching the revolution article with a 10-foot pole, I just thought I'd operate an emergency intervention and do the minimum necessary. Also, I can theorize that subarticles from the Revolution one could be created in the future (such as one on the Otopeni Massacre, or one two separate ones for Bucharest and Timişoara - detailed as "main article" from their mother).

The rest is open to scrutiny: I would include both the Mineriad and Golaniad in the cat (or, at least, could see a point in doing so), but I encourage others to take the final decision in this respect. Since we are at it, a subcat for People of the Romanian Revolution of 1989 is called for, but bound to be a headache and battleground. What's your say? Dahn 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigismund resigned in favor of Andrew Bathory before Michael entered Transylvania. I believe the event referred in that paragraph is the

• If you're sure of that, why not, go ahead. I was just going from what I read in the articles on Sigismund Báthory and Michael the Brave, where their alliance is mentioned. This also corresponded to my dim memories of the subject, but I don't have a history book with me to check. My suggestion though would be to first build the case -- perhaps by starting an article on Andrew Báthory and/or adding explanations in the other relevant articles -- so as to avoid any further confusions in the article on the Székely, which for some reason seems kind of hotly contested. Just a thought, please do whatever you think is best. Turgidson 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On 16 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simion Stoilow, 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 .

--Carabinieri 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On 22 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dimitrie Gerota, 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 .

--

} 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Ward Churchill article

Just wanted to call attention to my addition of a Request for Comment on the Churchill article. Please feel free to add your 2 cents under 'Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute'. Hopefully some additional perspectives on the issue will help resolve our disagreement. Thanks! - N1h1l 13:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Roma minority in Romania

Hey Turgidson,

Please check this out:

Roma minority in Romania#Self-proclaimed leaders. I noticed that the section (actually the entire article) needs some serious work. Is there any chance you could try to fix-up that section? I've been trying to cleanup the article, and it's come a long way. Thanks, Khoikhoi

04:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mulţumesc pt dezvoltarea articolului despre istoria Cluj-Napoca. --Roamataa 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: A few things

Hey Turgidson.

• Ok, thanks for your help on that article. I don't know much about Roma communal leadership, but I was thinking, do these anecdotical disputes really have marginal importance? IMO, they don't seem to reflect the actual grassroots organization that the Roma community has. Please tell me what your opinion is on this.
• Yeah, I'm sorry about all that. I speeded the article late at night (because it met
  CSD G5
  ). Then I went to sleep, and it was only until I got up when I realized the controversy that I had created. Sorry again.
• As for the
  WP:PAIN
  , but it has been deleted. However, I think Biru and Dahn have done a good job at intervening, but if you have any more questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk page.

Cheers,
Khoikhoi 05:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Habent sua fata...fabulae

Since you seem to lend some epitomic significance to the episode of the death of Tănase (…and I agree with this), I may report an amusing story about how news are made:

On 5th February 2003, under the name of my maternal grandfather (Marin Bărbat), I posted here an anecdote about the death of Tănase. About one year later, User: Jmabel, searching for infos for his newly created Constantin Tănase comes across my short story, as he notes here, then, he translates it and makes a section out of it. After several weeks, I accidentally discover Wikipedia and bump into the Constantin Tănase, where I am discovering… my anecdote. I’m posting to Jmabel welcoming this coincidence. (Very interestingly, on the rowiki an account of Tănase’s death reproducing the initial story - in German - was edited already in Nv 2005). Now, here it comes: in January 2007 the article you discovered in Jurnalul Naţional resumes the anecdote in quite identical terms with its German vs. rowiki vs. enwiki versions. Do we have here to do with a case of circular information ? Anyway, the chronology is: German version, rowikiversion, enwiki version, Jurnalul version, all quite identical. Should we ask Paula Mihailov Chiciuc from the Jurnalul, where she has her story from ? (Wouldn't it be tactless ?) Should Wikipedia have contributed to spreading and legitimating the anecdote my grandparetns used to tell ? Funny....--Vintilă Barbu 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, if you heard a similar story about Tănase’s death, this is reassuring me, because initially, as I put in circulation this story, I was astonished to note that nobody seemed to have known it, while I always had supposed that the story was a best-known one. Glad to see that I am not the only one left… As for the telefonul fără fir, it’s already here: in the original version Tănase simply disappears shortly after resuming the show with “eu tic, el tac”. In the rowiki, enwiki and especially Jurnalul, Tănase is “found dead” two days after resuming the show. I don’t need to stress which version is more plausible. (Besides, as far as I know, there is no known tomb of Tănase)

Inasmuch as I am still able to perform serious work and not just anecdote telling, I’ll try completing the Soviet occupation with some more aspects, like “Soviet counsellors”, IMO, a crucial aspect of Sovietisation. As for the title, I reconsidered my choice: it remains “occupation”… unless you accept “Sovietization” …  :-) --Vintilă Barbu 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

About Soviet occupation of Romania

Speaking of the article, I'm going to have to most regretfully suggest that for accuracy you consider removing (!) the accurate diacritics you added in the armistice signatory quote, as it is then no longer quoting verbatim the (English) version. SIGH! And, of course, we haven't even addressed the freely interchangeable Roumania, Rumania, but never Romania. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Unless we know for sure the diacritics were on the original. Given the Soviet system of butchering names transliterated to English (convert native to transliterated Russian, then transliterate to English insuring to ignore the native spelling, for example, yielding "Zveiniex" for the Latvian "Zvejnieks"), I'm surprised the names are as accurate as they even are! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ...got your message, if you take a look again during editing, you'll see that the Wiki article references all have the appropriate diacritics and almost all already have an article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ...looks perfect. :-) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You’re doing a great work on this entry.

The more I am considering about how long “Soviet occupation” lasted, the trickier the issue appears to me… Arguments have been quite exhausted on the talk page. When deciding upon the duration of the Soviet occupation, I would suggest focusing on the direct influence Soviets had on Romanian life rather than on simple military presence. In face of the difficulties and complexities related to the legal status of the Soviet presence, using the criterion of “Soviet direct involvement” in Romanian life, could probably simplify analyse and help circumscribing those aspects relevant for qualifying the presence as occupation. Let me try examples: imposing the Groza gvt. by Visinski in March 1945, the Sovroms (already done), the Soviet counsellors, the Russification measures in education and culture, etc. I am aware of the considerable difficulties in ascertaining “Soviet direct involvement”. What is directly attributable to the Soviet presence and what is only of “Soviet inspiration” ? Was “Piteşti re-education” imposed by Soviets through Nikolski or only Soviet-inspired? Same question for the Danube-channel. Actually, all these dilemmas subsume under “Is a puppet regime an occupation regime ?”. I think not. I vaguely recall some Soviet directives on how newly constituted satellite –countries are to be governed. I should find that document. Probably we should limit – as you say – the “Soviet occupation” to the first years up to the proclamation of the People’s Republic, creating an in-depth article about “the first years of the Communist regime” including of course the Dej era (already as sections in

Communist Romania article), highlighting the Sovietization and the creation, through a puppet regime, of a state mirroring and caricaturing the Soviet Union. (Btw, I think recalling someone having said just after 1945, what the new People’s Romanian Republic will mean: “I.V. Stalin plus I.L. Caragiale”. Anyway, se non è vero, è ben’ trovato. --Vintilă Barbu

09:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Serbia (historical province)

Have you seen this article? Items cases 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A request

Could I please persuade you not to use "ibid." (or "idem")? Whenever a change is made to the note, it becomes extremely difficult to make changes accordingly. Dahn 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob. It's just that I was going through July Theses (kudos, btw), and it was demanding to all those changes (the real problem is when a third person decides to edit and doesn't notice, which could make "ibid" references useless and that much harder to correct). To tell the truth, I haven't seen you use that much - this is why I thought I'd stress the potential for problems: it was better for me to let you know now than for us to be revisiting each and every article. I generally adapt my style to what is already in there, but this was something I couldn't help but change. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers. (PS: I was that abrupt because I had the text open in another window and editing it as I posted here.) Dahn 20:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right - sorry (well, I'm guessing he reads this as well). On the cite formats, i can go with whichever one is used, so I have no clear opinion about that. In case you guys feel more accustomed with one in particular, I will try to abide. Though I'd rather not use the format's metadata (or whatever the script that tells you where to place what portion of the title/name is called) - it's just ugly. In case you want to reach a consensus on this particular issue, i suggest the notice board's talk page (though I must say that, aside from the usual bunch, I suspect most editors on Romanian-related topics won't even know what you're talking about :)). Dahn 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Armed Forces Day

Hi. The root of evil here is that the

liberation of Romania was redirected to Soviet occupation of Romania by Krohn, which is POV-forking in my opinion (see also the discussion on the talk page). How should we proceed, should we rewrite the Liberation of Romania article or simply propose it for deletion? Thanks, Mentatus

13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed splitting

liberation of Romania can then discuss the relative merits of the Romanian and Soviet forces in the liberation. -- Petri Krohn

15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the split, since the liberation and the subsequent occupation are two different things, because simply redirecting the Liberation article to the Soviet occupation of Romania was POV. I don't deny the merit of the Soviet forces (and I think no realistic person would) in driving the German and Hungarian forces out of Romania (the Romanian Army couldn't have achieved that by herself). Mentatus 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dumitru Dămăceanu, 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 .

--ALoan (Talk) 09:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elvira Popescu, 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.

Thanks Turgidson.. I see a Romanian theme developing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter

As the header says: Happy Easter! Dahn 10:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 1978 Dictionary says "Aristizza", with no alternative given (I'm guessing it's due to either inconsistency at a time when no alphabet was really set - like for "Hasdeu", "Mateiu", "Millo" etc - or some personal quirk). For the other possible variants, we have redirects. I generally pay little attention to the generic lists, precisely for the reason you indicate (it makes them hard to maintain, but, on the plus side, people who may otherwise destroy articles channel their energies in that area). I suppose linking applies to Strunga as well (I just went with what caught my eye).

People still come up with that absurd theory about "redlinks being bad", and it is amazing that so many people would rather spend their time disrupting articles in this way, instead of contributing content. It also seems this is powered by cultural imperialism, based on what the average Anglo-Saxon suspects is irrelevant (especially annoying since it is implied that, instead of creating one good article, we should fill the room with one-sentence stubs, so that we may then have to explain, as has happened, if they are notable enough...). I say you needn't worry about the "policy", and, if this keeps going, I'll go and ask Jimbo himself about it.

Btw, that is a nice article, and long overdue. Congrats. (Minor style suggestion: the opening paragraphs make heavy use of the word "she", which I would replace here and there with a "Popescu", for variety's sake.) Dahn 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

du Val

Thanks for your work on Patrick du Val. I didn't get around to putting in more details of his work, which I think is currently lacking. I have his obituary from the Bull LMS but I am not so familiar with algebraic geometry. Please feel free to add to it more if you feel so inclined. Billlion 08:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ang[h]elescu & Lido

Hi. I agree with you that Angelescu is the most common form. Still, to expand on the issue, I think discussions on what the most common form is are bound to lead us nowhere in some cases of the same period (for example, Mihai or Mişu Pherekyde is also known as Ferechide, Pherekide, Ferekide, Pherechide, Ferekyde, Pherikide, Ferichide, and even Phereckide), so we may have to go with something common instead of looking for the most common, especially since these people are a bit too obscure for a google hits-based decision. This is just to say that Angelescu may be the lucky exception. I don't know why Bogdan hasn't answered, but I see he is being harassed by some users (one of whom is Bonaparte), so I don't blame him in case he decided to distance himself from the project (though I must say it would be a shame). Then again, I have been exceptionally tardy with my own replies over the last weeks - mainly because I started working randomly on some articles that were overdue. Btw, Ornea's books on Constantin Stere are a superb source on all sorts of people from the 1880-1940 period, but are difficult to search through (I bumped into a lot of info, some of which is about Angelescu, but it will take me time to build them into articles). In the meantime, you could ask another admin for the move.

I cannot really say what the deal with Lido is - the Păunescu businesses, except for B1 TV, are mysteries to me. I agree that we should have an article, but I wouldn't really know where to start (especially since googling it led me to a lot of commercial sites which we would have to avoid in creating the article, making the search more difficult than usual). As you may have noticed, I tend to concentrate my attention on one topic at a time (which, I admit, makes me a difficult person to work with). Though, in case you are in a hurry with the Lido article and want to start it right away, I will be visiting it in the future to see if I can add some stuff. Dahn 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Soviet occupation of Romania [6]

Filed. Please confirm awareness. -- Biruitorul 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania . For the Mediation Committee, ^ [omg plz] This message delivered by contact the Mediation Committee directly .

This message delivered: 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

DYK

On 25 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexandru Ghika, 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 .

--ALoan (Talk) 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How does "Not verified against its sources" not apply?

I'd like to know. It's perfectly legitimate to caution readers against unverified research. In fact, it's imperative. Wysdom 23:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.