User talk:Dahn/Archive 40

Detail

Hi, while I entirely support your position on Moldavian rulers there is one minor detail I have to disagree in your statement [1]. Ciceu (and Cetatea de Balta) were never part of Moldavia, they were personal fiefs held by the princes of Moldavia as vassals of the King of Hungary. For details see the article I wrote on ro.wiki: [2]. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here's a source you may find interesting (reed the footnote as well) [3]. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade splitting proposal

You may or may not know that some users recently proposed splitting Mircea Eliade into subarticles. I don't have any particular problem with that idea. However, I'm a bit wary of leaving the project to users who haven't been the ones most involved in putting the article in its current form (i.e. you and me). If you have time, I'd be interested to hear your input on the talk page. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping-pong

Welcome back, Dahn; I'm most glad to see you here again. Once again my sincerest condolences and sympathy as you heal.

My own view is that the Vianu article is too rich to pass up. Congratulations, and as long as you avoid that paragraph, you should be fine.

The winds of change are blowing once again, though I don't know if the idea of 4-5 Rauls is a good one, but at least they're doing something after a couple of months of paralysis. (It was in fact an e-mail from me to Adi that set this latest episode in motion.) I see the first article nominated since then is OK - maybe not FA-level, but at least they're getting the idea of footnotes. Progress!

I say "ping-pong" because I have an annoying request myself, with a slight touch of urgency no less: Moldavian Revolution of 1848. At this point I'm not after a radical rewrite (though that's welcome if you so desire!), but rather DYK eligibility. That means multiple sources - shall we say say Djuvara and Giurescu? Essentially, your job would be to add in a few footnotes - for instance if Djuvara mentions the events of April 8-9, put in a note at the end of that paragraph; or one at the Dorinţele partidei section from Giurescu. I could probably even do something myself from our articles on Ghica and Kogălniceanu, but I prefer entrusting this to you, as you have the books yourself - right? Biruitorul ^Talk 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitchins (presumably not an Orthodox) uses "Constantinople", which does appear in other writings on the Principalities, which was the official and international name (for instance, I just checked and found that the NYT first used "Istanbul" in 1928), and which is still used by modern sources to refer to the city for as late as 1920, but be that as it may.

Anyway, on the substantive issue - take your time (4-5 days remain), and thank you for whatever you may come up with.

It does seem I'm less radioactive with the ro.wiki people. Things seem more congenial there since the departure of this man and his associates, but I must say I found this comment of his highly amusing - to begin with, "wiki" is not English, but Hawaiian.

What's your opinion on my historic monuments query? I'd be glad to know.

Things have been fairly quiet on the Romanian front, though we now have articles on the Fortifications of Bucharest, Capital punishment in Romania and, dearest to me, Vin americanii! (I didn't think I could manage an article on such an intangible subject, but there you go.) Ah, and the Moldova business continues. See for instance this edit - I can accept that culture east of the Prut differs in certain respects from west (though some actual sources would be nice), but it's this pretence that the two have absolutely nothing in common that's maddening. For instance the claim that "interwar Romanian rule brought Romanianization campaigns" - against Slavs, maybe, just as happened against Hungarian institutions in Transylvania; but just as no one accuses the post-1918 government of conducting "Romanianization campaigns" against Transylvania's Romanians, so too I think it's difficult to claim Romania was seeking to "Romanianize" the Moldovans/Romanians. Actually they didn't much care about them either way. But the reader is left with the impression that the Prut forms an impregnable wall of separation and that Bucharest suddenly came in to impose its culture on native people there, which is, shall we say, a bit misleading. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and these are the towns in Hotin Raion, none of which looks like Cofa (which means "bucket" in the Slavic languages as well, complicating searches). That would imply it's a village, unless it has a totally different name in Ukrainian. Do you see it here? I don't... My advice, at least for now, would be to ask a Ukrainian for some help - Ostap R, Horlo, DDima. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And...all I can say is I offer more condolences and thank you :) --Kuaichik (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My dear, I've only just returned as well, although my absence was for much happier reasons. Biru told me about your loss and I can only offer my sincerest condolences, I'm terribly sad to hear that you've had to go through such a tragedy. The dead sleep in the peace of the Eternal, the living remember them and honor them. All my best wishes, K. Lásztocska^talk 06:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite nice, generally--the weather was atrociously schizophrenic, and there was much more culture shock than I anticipated, but generally I enjoyed myself. The opera tour was exhausting though, it's good to be done with that....

You've reminded me, time to upload some nice PD photos. :) K. Lásztocska^talk 13:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Well, Mr.Dahn, I don't think so! Why I chosed google pages? Because there are too many sources that should be wrote. You say you're from Romania. Haven't you heard about 'Gândul'? Sorry, but you made a mistake! I was obiective. I demand apologises!--Rastronomer (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Demand away. If you continue to misinterpret citations and ignore the most basic of wikipedia rules, I will demand your "apologises" for making administrators review your behavior "obiectively". Wanna bet you'll be blocked as a result? Now be gone. Dahn (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Want to loose?--Rastronomer (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Roma minority

I've taken the bold step and removed anything I saw to be positive or negative bias. Might need a bit of expansion, but I implore you to keep the article neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Cofa

Hi. Here is what I think. This map says "Cofa Ukraine". 48° 31' 0 N, 26° 43' 0 E. This map says Konovka other name Cofa, and also 48° 31' 0N, 26° 43' 0E. So I think the city is Konovka Chernivtsi Oblast Kelmenetskyi Raion, which has an entry on Ukrainian wikipedia Коновка. I hope that helps, please re-check to make sure. Ostap 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Anatol E. Baconsky DYK

On 25 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anatol E. Baconsky, 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.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

problem

Dear friend, On Giuseppe Ungaretti I've a problem with your phrase on Ermetismo and Fascism: "(Ungaretti remained)...a supporter of his Blackshirts and National Fascist Party". Ungaretti became a friend of Mussolini (but when he was socialist), and formally U. subscribes the manifesto of the Fascist Italian writers, but, as explained on the biography of Piccioni, in spite of the friendiship with M., he was not a supporter of his Blackshirts and National Fascist Party, and sometimes he was imprisoned for subversive talkings against Fascism (also if every time Mussolini set free him). So I think it'ld be right to delete that phrase, and insert only: "Ungaretti joined in the Fascist Party signing the Manifesto of the Italian Writers". Tell me what do you think about. Ciao --Egonon (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1848 revolution

Not to worry - it did make DYK. By the way, a question for when you return. I was thinking of how we should eventually approach the 1848 revolution in Transylvania. Indeed I have a fairly complete article on the Blaj Assemblies, but as I worked I found it's quite hard to separate them from the history of the revolution as a whole. And then the Simion Bărnuţiu article ... evolved, and now includes a section on each Assembly. So I suppose the first priority is to decide how to address the changes to the Bărnuţiu article, and then how to approach the revolution as a whole. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But first, please read below. Dahn (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No rush. Well, I'm off myself for a while, but if you'd like an exercise that requires only low-to-moderate mental exertion, I've now started articles (well, "articles") on each and every commune in Romania. That means the 31 communes here, most or all of these, and these should be ready for merging. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I was actually wondering what was afoot, but I assumed you'd be back soon, and it's great to hear that. Good luck fixing your computer; I'm sure we'll have plenty to discuss in the coming weeks. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I may as well make a few points now before I forget them:

1. Interestingly, my grandfather, born a month before Baconsky, also attended Alecu Russo High School from 1936-44, and the two remained good friends until the latter's death. My grandfather helped bury Baconsky, and I see no place of burial is given in the article - I've forgotten myself already, but it's in Bucharest (not Bellu).

2. Speaking of cemeteries, I paid two visits to Ghencea cemetery of late, in search of the grave of the protesters killed in the monarchist demonstration of 8 November 1945 (it's on the lists of the Ministry of Culture). Half a dozen people (administrators included) gave me either blank stares or curt dismissals. Maybe in half a century they'll publish a brochure, and in another century have a website. Meanwhile, albeit with no picture, maybe I could start an article - Cioroianu mentions it, as does a biography of the King. Both of my grandmothers were sixteen at the time - one, then in Bucharest, still recalls the perception that it was a key stage in the silencing of the opposition, while the other, then in Brăila, took part in a large march of schoolchildren, students and workers shouting "Re-ge-le Mi-hai! Re-ge-le Mi-hai!" (A classmate noticed an agent taking down student identification numbers, and quickly ripped the armband off my grandmother.) Anyway: should this article be born, what title would you suggest? "8 November 1945 demonstration in Bucharest" sounds awfully prosaic; "Saint Michael's day protest", while nicer, is unfortunately a neologism.

3. I've put up a picture of the Rondul Român (plus the sculptures therein) - would that be a good fit for the Cişmigiu Gardens article? The "Buildings to the south, as seen from the park" picture is a duplicate, and anyway the gallery seems a bit repetitive. Your call.

4. On Armand Călinescu. First, his monument now looks like this instead of this - probably not worth using in the article, right? But, if you're interested, I've uploaded these pages ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8] - "All Sizes" to magnify). Reference: Nicolae Chivulescu, Armand Călinescu, om de stat şi conducător de ţară, Bucharest, Editura Lucman, 2005, ISBN 973-8465-98-2. Not vital, but does give some interesting tidbits like how he lost his eye or the high school he attended. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone and another notice

I must have seemed inconsiderate to all the people who have waited for me to reply to their messages over these past weeks - in particular Plinul, Biruitorul, KL, and Egonon (but also all those who have contacted me elsewhere). I apologize to all of you for not being able to keep as steady a presence as I would have otherwise and for only prioritizing edits which took the least concentration and effort (which should explain my sporadic presence these last days). I had a rough time in real life (as some of you may already know), have had some computer problems, and I'm leaving town for the next week. I really do miss wiki activity and wish I could get back sooner, but I unfortunately cannot promise a more regular and implicated presence until around August 20.

Also, please don't let this disclaimer prevent you from engaging in discussions here or posting messages related to any subject I might take interest in. I will do my best to weigh in on all those issues, even if it may come with a serious delay. Please accept my warmest regards, and do keep in touch. Dahn (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Capisco

I understand your intellectual objections (and sorry for my "technical" difficulties on the notes, but I'm a new entry on wiki:) , and I know that my sources are older than Picchione & Smith (I studied U. and Italian literature of '900 for five years, but especially in 1970). But I read all the works of U., and his message is of love, mercy, universal understanding: so I'm trying to write a "Poetica" after your biography, and I'ld be happy if you help me or write together with me on this way. I'm old, but I can learn by you the same every day:) Ciao--Egonon (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, I thank you so much for your words, and advices. Arrivederci, --Egonon (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Domenico Pellegrini Giampietro

I have nominated Domenico Pellegrini Giampietro, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenico Pellegrini Giampietro. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 08:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New thread

Before I reply to your points (which I shall), I should note that I started this partly in anticipation at the brilliant comment you'd no doubt make there. This route seems a lost cause, but those who have tried reforming WP:ATHLETE have also been unsuccessful so far... Biruitorul ^Talk 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Eeeexcelent. For the Law Faculty, is this what you meant? There's also (this and this - I could ask the creators to release them under a free license). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad to hear that. There's a fire waiting to be put out... Biruitorul ^Talk 15:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

I posted a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romani people#Help needed. Please have a look. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Romanian workers sport organisation in 1931?

Hi. Do you know what is the name of the Romanian affiliate of the Socialist Workers' Sport International, mentioned on http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH2001/JSH2801/JSH2801d.pdf, page 24? --Soman (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ciao!

Ahoj! Maybe you oculd help me with my new Giorgio Bocca article which had been immediately marked as poor written! WAAAH! Thanks and good work! --Attilios (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes... I agree with you on the whole line. If you sign a Fascist manifesto, you ARE a fascist... then you can change idea or whatever. So we must list it as he deserves. Returning to Bocca, thanks much for your corrections. Hope the article will improve on the way. Let's see (if you're interested, there's a new expansion of mine - this time from... FRENCH... I'm frightened by the results I could have had) at Jean Pierre de Laclos. Ciao and good work. --Attilios (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if I may intrude on this thread (and a hearty welcome back, Dahn), and speaking of fascism, here is a great series of articles -- especially "Regele cîrmaci" and the next three or so. It's striking not so much the extent to which Carol's dictatorship resembled other European countries of the time (which isn't that surprising), but rather a later Romanian dictatorship, which seems to have borrowed liberally from some of the imagery and language he used, despite its very different ideological underpinnings. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Biru, and it's good to be back - this time it's for real, right after I catch up with my backlog. I wholeheartedly concur: there is a manifest connection between the two, and this article only just begins to give a glimpse into what authors have said about the subject (and, of course, what any informed persons can see for themselves). And this would be just a small part of the wider discussion on the connections between Ceauşism and fascism (it also involves Corneliu Vadim Tudor, Iosif Constantin Drăgan, Jean Thiriart and Petre Ţuţea, to name but a few). Maybe, once we do something about the core subject, we could consider making this discussion an article on its own? Dahn (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I was just thinking the other day, though: is there a biography of him (in either language) free of polemic, hagiography, conspiracy theories, myth? It took 17 years for such a work to be produced on the Revolution, so I have to wonder.

As for the Protopopescu issue: I must say I lean to the cautious side in classing someone as a "victim", so I tend to concur with you. And since we have the category, we should fill it, and perhaps write an explanatory heading there attempting to define what a "victim" is. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right - no biography, but plenty of potpourri, and yes, it's the pre-1965 material that will be more difficult to find but potentially quite compelling (eg his role in collectivization (another article ripe for expansion); how did he get to the top will be an interesting question to answer and, by the way, one of his key rivals, the Last of the Mohicans, is still looking sharp at 95).

I'll see if I can do anything - I/we also have this to figure out what to do with. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and by the way, this is highly amusing. One wonders: is the state too busy to carry out these executions itself; indeed, has it not gone out of that business altogether? And what have these passengers done to merit such a fate? Surely they are accorded habeas corpus? If this is its "main object of activity", what about other objects? Are car drivers subject to the same "activity"? Horse riders? Really, it's a most interesting company, a niche no one had yet thought of filling. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's from this year, done on his 95th birthday by NPCR. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if nPCR is just one guy in a room, or if they have any real-world significance. I agree we should have a "legacy" section there, but the main exponent of the radical left in the last 20 years has been the PSM, and we still don't have an article on that (which seems more of a priority).

Incidentally, something I meant to ask you while you were away: I've revamped the List of universities in Romania, but one task I found quite difficult was determining a date of establishment for some schools. A famous example would be Babeş-Bolyai: the university has 1581 on its seal, but what was established in 1581 has essentially nothing in common with today's institution, which more or less was born in 1872 (though Babeş-Bolyai as such didn't come about until 1959). So I put in two dates for some, but I don't know if that's always the best solution. Anyway, I suppose I don't have a specific question; just something to look out for. (Oh, and I was considering having a section for former universities: do you know of any others beside the Ştefan Gheorghiu Academy?) Biruitorul ^Talk 02:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, no problem. The article does, however, say he was born there, but it's probably based on the JN archives, now sadly gone. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just keep them coming. Keep 'em coming, I said! -- Biruitorul ^Talk 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was eagerly awaiting these two. Funny, no mention of this, this, this, this, him, him, him... Biruitorul ^Talk 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Biserica Neagră

Hello, quite honestly I don't find my ref formatting very different from what was used until then: in any case, when the full bibliographic details are given, cite templates should be used, and for a single footnote it wouldn't fit to include that info in "References". As for the German source I've added, indeed, it's what Balkanski has cited and I have no access to it and its full bibliographic data.

I don't see how Cyrillic's wrong either — having to include transliterations/translations is tedious, listing names in Latin and the title in Cyrillic is mixing up and doesn't really appeal to me, and if one's to read the book, they'd have to be able to read Bulgarian Cyrillic anyway.

As for Kroraina/Promacedonia, don't be fooled, these are just an online library of sorts, not political websites or anything, they just republish some scanned and OCR-ed books online. I don't see how citing a published source fails WP:RS, the link to the "web edition" is just for easy access by the reader, and Balkanski is a well-respected scholar in that field. If you don't like that easy access, you can remove the link, but that won't help anyone.

I'm sorry if the small differences in the reference formatting have bothered you, personally, I don't quite find it such a big deal, but I can understand your pedantry :) All the best and keep up the good work, Todor→Bozhinov 10:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, keeping all the citations uniformly formatted is an important matter, and I understand your remarks fully. Promacedonia and Kroraina are two mirrors of the same online library assembled by the same person. Both texts (Miletich's and Balkanski's) have been published (as have been all books on those websites), and both are very eminent scholars (Miletich is one of my favourite researchers in terms of topics of interest and treatment, if that matters). In particular, Miletich's study on the late medieval Slavic documents from Romania was published in 1896 and the author died in 1937, so it should be public domain. Now, Balkanski's scanned book from 1996 is technically a copyvio, but I see the websites as an online library of some sort, and I have no problem with that personally. Whether such publications should be linked from Wikipedia is another thing, but that has little to do with the credibility of both publications, which is beyond doubt.

Don't worry about anything, it's OK to discuss that and your remarks are absolutely reasonable. I also greatly enjoy your articles and the way you work has always impressed me. The current trend to co-operate across the Danube is very admirable: as you said, we did indeed have a lot in common, and we all need to work together to kick misconceptions out.

By the way, the Black Church has one of the most awe-inspiring entrance gates I've seen. I'm totally in love with practically all the old architecture of Romania (from the Putna and Neamţ monasteries through the wooden churches and vernacular architecture to the fortified villages and Gothic and Baroque influences in Transylvania). I'm definitely going to visit all those places some day, but at the moment I lack the time and resources for such a journey :) Todor→Bozhinov 12:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be the best possible solution to reach out and co-operate. We all have to look beyond the stereotypes and inveterate viewpoints of our past in order to work together effectively. I'm trying to do that with contributors of all nationalities, but it is not always easy: for some contributors, particularly Turks and Macedonians, keeping the feelings aside is a difficult thing.

I'm not entirely sure whether the Cyrillic approach is the best one—but it does its job, it is trustable and it can't be done wrongly, unlike transliteration and frivolous translation.

I've heard a lot of good comments about Sibiu and it does look better preserved than Braşov. They don't seem to be that far apart, however, in order to choose between them: the choice would most likely be between Moldavia + Maramureş or Banat. I won't miss central Transylvania and for the time being Bucharest is a must not just because it is a must-see, but because one has to go all the way east to Rousse to use the Danube bridge. But who knows, by the time I'm ready to go we might have the bridge at Vidin completed. We urgently have to build more bridges, both literally and figuratively ;)

Plovdiv owns Sofia in pretty much every respect… I don't really like Sofia. I don't know how it appears to visitors, but for someone who's bound to living and commuting there, it's a nightmare. The epithets "grown ugly, dirty, flashy, exhausting and aggravating" I'd apply to Sofia without even thinking about it. In particular, the local transport is appalling, traffic jams are the rule rather than the exception, and every type of popular public transport is usually overcrowded. Yeah, there are the nice spots like the parks, Vitosha and some quieter areas in the city centre (like around the City Garden), but overall the city won't ever appeal to me. But then again, I don't think most other capitals around here are any different. At least ours have their heritage and sights, unlike some other capital cities in the region.

Maybe you're right about the sort-of "commercialization" of that traditional architecture—anything that is overused can get dull and annoying. It's just that for me as an outsider it's something unique and rarely-seen because our vernacular and church architecture is very different in many aspects. There are a few "Romanian Revival" buildings left in Silistra and Dobrich, but that comes nowhere near representing all the varieties and styles and especially not the church architecture.

It's curious that you have that slight Bulgarian connection, and it's very interesting that the yes and no instincts have outlived the language in that case. I have no idea where that inversion came from, I thought it was shared by the Greeks too but I'm not sure about that and I found no confirmation. It's weird and it probably deserves an article of its own :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I know what you mean by drifting out, it tends to happen to me too :P As for Southern Dobruja — I'd have to agree with you, I don't think its annexation by Romania was very reasonable. I think it was the Russian compensation for the annexation of Bessarabia , which as a region had a significant Romanian past. There were few Romanians in the south, the Christian population was mostly Bulgarian with sizable Turkish and Tatar subregions. But yeah, sea access was crucial to any country at the time: Romania was already growing in power and who would miss the chance to retain an outlet on the Black Sea :) After all, Constanţa is today one of Europe's best ports, much more frequented than our Varna.

Yeah, the repression of Muslims in communist Bulgaria was a shameful thing; but its effects should not be misjudged by Turkish nationalists: it is a topic that has to be rationally examined. Turks seem to underestimate the effect ot the Armenian, Pontic and Eastern Thracian massacres and overestimate the effect of the renaming and eviction campaigns of the Bulgarian communists. But that is understandable.

Honestly, the Balchik Palace is indeed kitschy, but I guess that's how Bahá'í see beauty... Don't worry, Sofia has terrible traffic jams too :) It's true that your Ceauşescu was a megalomaniac: Zhivkov was a simple peasant but at least he wasn't that obsessed with power. I've passed through Belgrade and it has some megalomaniac tower blocks and communist stuff that we don't have here, so I guess Tito was a bit on the crazy side as well. The Palace in Bucharest isn't that bad, it has some decent looks unlike the repetitive panelkas; Stalinism isn't as bad as brutalism in my view. Tearing down the mausoleum was a pretty comic event; it had its critics, but overall I think it was a good decision, the building was plain ugly and Bulgaria isn't Egypt so we don't keep mummies out of museums :D

Vitosha is cool though, it's a great retreat from the frantic life in the city. I'm planning a downhill bike ride there at some point :P But Dealul Mitropoliei seems like a nice place too, and the Wallachian style is so obviously different from the Moldavian style if I might add :) Todor→Bozhinov 12:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maccabi Bucuresti

Nu stiu de unde aveti informatiile legate de acest club, dar eu am cartea oficiala a federatiei, Anuarul fotbalului romanesc, in care specifica clar, nu a fost nici o fuziune intre Maccabi si Unirea Tricolor. Ambele au fost preluate de catre MAI, prima fiind redenumita Dinamo A, iar cea de-a doua Dinamo B. Prima va fi cunoscuta in continuare drept Dinamo (cea de azi), iar a doua vai fi cunoscuta in continuare drept Dinamo Brasov...a fost mutata in alt oras ca sa poata evolua in Divizia A. In 1956 a fost mutata iar, de data asta la Cluj, pentru ca un an mai tarziu sa fie desfiintata, iar lotul de jucatori sa fie mutat la Bacau.

De la Fălticeni

Vă mulţumesc mult domnule Dan pentru răspuns şi pentru încurajarea de a participa constructiv la grandiosul proiect Wikipedia şi vă cer încă o dată mii de scuze.

     Cu respect    Fălticeni  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falticeni (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 

Thanks

Thank you for your kind words. I do however believe that I have added relatively little quality content on ro.wiki. I have done more in removing unsuitable content. Unfortunately, health and professional issues prevent me from having a more active role on either wiki. I was going to my opinion on this: [9] but I don't have the strength right now. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Poezii

There may indeed be hundreds of books of this title, but while Wikipedia only has an article about the one, it should, according to the Naming Convention, have the undisambiguated title until an article is created for another one. But I won't move it back again, as I see your point! (WP:IAR) Actually, looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), it ought to be just the surname... Have sorted it out, and also Excelsior (Macedonski) PamD (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember titling it Poezii with the year in parentheses (18... ). If I did not title it like that, it is a case of pressing "save" before realizing how I titled it. I do not even like Macedonski's poetry. I was doing that at the time (mid August), creating articles for three of his volumes or such, because I was looking for something to busy myself with in Wikipedia. I came back to Wikipedia after a hiatus and was out of synch. A is putting the smack down (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I like some of his poems. I usually do my best to appreciate a work of art/literature/music etc. and learn something from it. What I learn from poems that I don't like is what to avoid in my own writings. Often works of art are interesting for their place in history, what they reveal about sociology, aesthetics, psychology, language, etc. Sometimes poems that I don't like almost fascinate me; I re-read them to identify what I don't like. For example there is this poem by Yves Bonnefoy titled "Here, still here" (in English translation). When I read that poem I feel like re-writing it. A is putting the smack down (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

obviously there are some works (paintings etc.) I ignore or don't give much attention to, either because they are grotesque, disturbing, or...some Manele or American country song I'd rather not waste time appreciating when I can appreciate something else :) However when it comes to poetry, nothing is really grotesque I would argue, the word would be awful. Poems are an art form I can enjoy even if a poem is bad. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rimbaud has a paragraph (English translation):

"What I liked were: absurd paintings, pictures over doorways, stage sets, carnival backdrops, billboards, bright-colored prints, old-fashioned literature, church Latin, erotic books full of misspellings, the kind of novels our grandmothers read, fairy tales, little children's books, old operas, silly old songs, the naive rhythms of country rimes."

I first came across this paragraph (and across Rimbaud) in 1998. It was written in 1873. I completely related to it and enjoyed the paragraph. Aside from church Latin, I have a lot of the same interests :) Reading Macedonski (when I do read him) has that same attraction for me. Listening to Manele also has that attracion...I like some manele, like the one used as Borat's theme. A is putting the smack down (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Yes, I would join & contribute to such a project page or pages. I've already contributed here & there to such articles and will contribute further. I have been studying what is known as Symbolist literature since 1998 or so. About the same time I began studying Parnassian literature, although I haven't read a lot of Parnassian literature or criticism. I can however get or find a lot of that literature. My studies in symbolism in art and Art Nouveau go back further, because my father collected art and amassed a collection of books on the subject. I have in my garage alone numerous works I can use to contribute, and in Los Angeles you can find many good books on the subject. While I was exposed to symbolism in art (as opposed to literature) and to Art Nouveau many years before my discoveries in literature, I never studied the subjects with the level of interest that I studied the literature. Basically I was a kid/teenager reading my dad's art books and looking at the works he had acquired and discussing them. I have the books that my father bought in my garage. He's in Romania, but he left his books here. I have not yet read a lot of the Romanian work (George Bacovia etc.) mostly because the works were not readily available in Los Angeles and I would have had to go out of my way to find them. From the "symbolists" & "pre-symbolists" I have mostly read Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Mallarme, Verlaine, some Nerval, La Forgue. However the ones I have read I have read them (in English translation & original French) with an interest and an affinity that is apparently not that common these days. I have read a lot of post-symbolism :Guillaume Apollinaire (whose early work was symbolist and whose later works largely grew out of symbolism), the Surrealists, the Beats, the contemporaries etc. So yes, I am interested in contributing to those articles and projects. A is putting the smack down (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I also like Art Deco artists such as Tamara de Lempicka. So the project would include Symbolism (arts), Parnassianism, and Art Nouveau, or would they be separate projects? A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Roger Davies and User:Yllosubmarine would probably also be interested. They have listed themselves at Talk:Arthur Rimbaud. Although Arthur Rimbaud may be the single most prominent figure in symbolist literature, Arthur never referred to himself as a symbolist in writing, if at all. In fact him referring to himself as a symbolist seems contrary to his personality. And if you read his prose poems especially (the Illuminations) there is a lot of symbolism there, but there is also a lot of what we would now recognize as surrealism. In fact there is probably more surrealism in the Illuminations than there is symbolism. I don't recall the latest statements of literary critics regarding this, but I do have a quote on hand that explicitly mentions the Surrealists, not the Symbolists, as the "real heirs of Rimbaud". I believe it was Wallace Fowlie who wrote that, a well-known critic & translator in the field. A is putting the smack down (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The template looks nice. I have never started a WikiProject before and you seem to be more familiar with arranging/setting up such a page. Yes Rimbaud definitely has to be included as part of the Symbolism Wikiproject, I opened the discussion regarding Rimbaud because I felt it would be better to put that discussion out there as we begin, and maybe other editors checking your talk page will read that. Secondary sources for Symbolist literature: Anna Balakian, Wallace Fowlie, Enid Starkie, etc. Anna Balakian is a major figure in Symbolist studies. I have a lot of books on Art Nouveau/Symbolism in my garage, and there is this volume I have called The Spiritual in Art, Abstract Painting, 1890---1985 published by LACMA, Abbeville Press which I recommend if anybody wants a nice work on the subject in their library. A is putting the smack down (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I started the project page. I'm not saying that I know more about symbolism than you (I think you may have written that earlier, that I know more about this subject; even if that were the case I do not know more about Romanian symbolism), although I may have read more of those authors I mentioned than you have, and I've been reading them for ten years now, so I'm familiar with them. However I have read mostly the French symbolists, not the Romanian, Russian, etc. And I have not read that much criticism or literary theorizing/essays on the subject. The criticism/essays I read were mostly in the form of introductions to the poetry in the various volumes, and commentary from the translators, etc. Or introductions and commentary in various anthologies. But I have not for example read a specific book by Anna Balakian about symbolism. I have to catch up on my Art Nouveau, that was awhile ago :) I need help with the project page. A is putting the smack down (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Now I'm kind of anxious to get it going so I can place the template on a lot of talk pages. It's fun, like organizing a stamp collection. What I want to do at Symbolism (arts) is really trace how after-the-fact Rimbaud and others came to often be classed as Symbolists. This will be a long-term project of mine. A is putting the smack down (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in the meanwhile I will begin putting the Project page together bit by bit. A is putting the smack down (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Project Page itself should be easy, but I don't know how to make templates. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could learn how to make a template, but doesn't it also require some programming code or something, I'm very unclear on this. You wrote that Macedonski was "the weirdo as far as our culture is concerned"---I never heard of that, but I haven't read much about him or heard much conversation about him. He was a weirdo I would agree. I really haven't read enough of his work to judge his art well. Many of his poems are dull (despite their quirkiness, the quirkiness often comes off as dull Paranassian quirkiness) in the manner of Francois Coppee and Louis-Xavier de Ricard, fellow Paranassian poets. Others are better. A is putting the smack down (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you just design a template and then once it's finished you just place the template code on a talk page {{WP etc.}} and it will work, no "programming" required? A is putting the smack down (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, some perspective on my "literary" tastes for Dahn and other readers: I think this poem by Theophile Gautier is very primitive and ineffective [10] (many of Macedonski's poems are similar to that). Baudelaire improved upon those kind of sentiments and produced poems that are more valuable. I don't like criticizing Macedonski's poetry too much because 1) I've read no more than 20 of his poems, I think 2) when I'm critizing Maceonski's work casually in Wikipedia (of course not in the article on him) the reader can't see my criticisms of Gautier, Coppee, de Ricard, etc. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Romanians

Removing all 'Distinguish' headings from this page was an eminently sensible edit on your part. My intention in adding the 'Romans' cat. was to help illustrate the very point you made. RashersTierney (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not forget. I checked him, too. But she was more appealing. :) There is no way to confuse Romanians with an actor! Dc76\^talk 08:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

An actor is composed of only one entity, the actor itself. While Romanians is composed of many entities (every particular Romanian, anywhere in the world), and Romano cheese is also not just one entity (you can not refer to a piece of Romano cheese as "the" Romano chese), but of many little pieces of Romano cheese around the world. I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding. :) Dc76\^talk 09:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vilna Troupe

I took a shot at what I could do about cleaning the citation apparatus without the book in hand. Take a look, tell me if it's OK (or not). - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattias Corvinus

Hi, I saw that in the article about Mattias Corvinus there are two possibilites mentioned about his father's (Iancu de Hunedoara) origin. The first is Romanian, backed by five sources, 3 out of 5 non-Romanian, and a fourth one which is a Romanian author writing about the works of an Italian humanist or diplomat, Ransano. The other origin proposed is Cumanian, and all five sources are in Hungarian and most seem like the kind of thing you write together with a friend over a bottle of beer. If I am wrong, please correct me, but please look at this part of the article. Thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I talked with a Hungarian there and he explained some of the sources. You can still have a look at the article if you want, though, maybe you can bring something positive to it. Again thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

All hail the cabinets!

Ach! I was hopeful we would be able to live without these, that the templates would suffice, but I guess not. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 17:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this right now, but you may be interested in this proposal. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 17:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A full reply is forthcoming, but meanwhile, did you see this!? One could spend hours browsing that, even with my very weak German. I wish the Romanians would do something similar, but I'm not holding my breath. Ah, and any thoughts on Victor Marius Beliciu, Haralamb H. Georgescu, Bogdan Bacanu, Dan Stoenescu, George Draga, Dumitru Fărcaş, Andras Chiriliuc, Ciprian Preda, Andrei Markovits, Ervin Acél, Alexandru Moisuc? I could see a bunch of those being deleted at AfD, with others requiring drastic cleanup.

I highly appreciate the barnstar and yes, I did start every one of the communes - not too entertaining, but I did it so we could then eliminate the villages. The remaining villages are at Category:Communes and villages in Romania, Category:Communes and villages in Transylvania, Category:Villages in Cluj County; anything you can merge would be helpful. The only one I'd be a little careful about is Giurtelecu Şimleului: obviously the author has worked quite hard on it, and we'd want to let him know before moving it to Măerişte.

Question: is Colegiu Naţional better given as "National College" or "High School"? The second sounds more natural in English, but the first is more literal, and in any case Liceu means something slightly different - so it's what I used in practice. It would be useful to hear your opinion going forward, and we should go forward: right now, Category:High schools in Romania is still pretty empty (we have, incredibly, nothing on high schools in Cluj, Braşov, Iaşi, Sibiu or Timişoara, for example), and most of what we do have is of rather poor quality. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed an iceberg: how could one forget Doru Popovici, Mircea Ciugudean, Eugen Gondi, Florin Barbu? And one wishes Iulia Antoanella Moţoc wasn't ex officio notable as a member of the Human Rights Committee, because really. By the way, any thoughts regarding the revert war I just discovered surrounding Mihai Suba? With Brâncuşi and Comăneci now both having diacritics, it seems a bit odd to pick him as the one person who'll be denied them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't yet AfD'd any of those guys, but I know you'll enjoy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peru–Romania relations.

Empty categories are liable for deletion anyway, so I'd say the priority should be on merging the villages rather than eliminating the categories (which also help us keep track of what's left to do). On Giurtelec, I quite agree it's largely a mess, it's just that we ideally don't want the author to create too much of a stir. (I thought he'd left Wikipedia, but then he came back and kept starting articles. Some, like Alexander Ratiu (not Raţiu?), Valerian Stan or Emil Pop are a bit blah, but it's nice that he finally started something on Emil Hurezeanu.)

The Chad story is indeed a strange one: it seems that, just as Romania aspires to be a mini-France in other areas, it has its own Françafrique too, despite not having had colonies there (an interesting what-if, though: what if a couple of African countries had been Romania's?).

I've e-mailed you on the COI issue; let me know if you've read my message. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A fine new article: Danubian Europe - possible target for AfD.
By the way, I noticed something we appear to lack. We have a Category:Romanian senators but no category for other legislators. How would Category:Members of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies (I'd include the pre-1948 Assembly of Deputies members here too) and Category:Members of the Great National Assembly do? I'm open to other suggestions as well.
21 copies! - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold your breath no longer. Granted, one wishes for many more of these sorts of archival photos to be available, but it's a great start. Indeed let me praise the Institute in general on this score: they've been uploading penal dossiers, and they've published a thorough account of the Communist prison system. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

By all means, take all the time you need. I'm well aware of my own decline in productivity, having done just two articles in the past two months, but I expect to ramp up activity in the new year. Meanwhile, keep up the good work on Vilna and whatever else you may be preparing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

just some edits... back "there"

Hi, should you have the time, please look at this. It's not really my field and I have so little time that I'm just letting it be. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "papist"

My apologies for that; lately I haven't been very active at DYK during the week, so this one must have flown under my radar. It looks like the hook was promoted in this update and, as you pointed out, it had not been verified by anyone (also, as far as I can tell, it wasn't even expiring, and there were a lot of older hooks that had been verified...so I'm not sure why it was picked). Davidwr had said he preferred the ALT, but no one had explicitly verified.

In these situations I generally like to strike out old hooks when I'm proposing a better one or pointing out a specific problem with a hook, just because when people move hooks to Next they are often in a hurry and (I'm guilty of this too) grab things quickly and might accidentally take the wrong hook; putting <s></s> around the bad hooks, I think, helps make it easier to tell they shouldn't be taken. There's not a DYK rule about it or anything, but I think it's good practice.

As for the promotion of the hook...I feel bad even bringing this up, because Orlady is an excellent contributor and reviewer and has much more experience at DYK than I do, but, that being said, I have seen him promoting non-verified hooks a couple times before. I might leave him a friendly message if no one has done so already. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side, at least, it looks like the wording has been fixed sometime after your message, because "papist" wasn't there when I checked this morning. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've responded to this issue on my talk page. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Alexandru Macedonski

On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexandru Macedonski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Done!!!!!!!! The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Vilna Troupe, redux

Nice work. I'm making some edits. Question: "the recrudescence of antisemitic manifestations": do you really want "manifestations" or is that a false cognate? Do you perhaps mean "demonstrations"? "Manifestations" in English is rather vague (more or less "things that comes into being", "things that crop up"). "Demonstrations" encompasses things like political rallies. In any case, if you really want "manifestations", you probably want to reword so that you don't use "in manifest contrast" in the same sentence. - Jmabel | Talk 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Shows produced under the Vilna Troupe name were also staged after 1927." Does this mean "Shows continued to be produced in Bucharest under the Vilna Troupe name even after 1927," or does it mean something else? - Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Sever Voinescu

On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sever Voinescu, 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.

Orlady 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Romanian electoral system

Hi Dahn! Yes, I have indeed made a comeback to Wikipedia, even though I don't think I will have a lot of time for editing. The new Romanian electoral system seems to me to be insanely difficult to understand. At the same time, I think it parallels some other systems existing throughout Europe. I have read mixed member proportional representation (MMPR) in detail and it seems that there are several systems which qualify as MMPR. In some MMPR systems, like that of Germany, voters cast two separate votes: one constitutency vote ("uninominal") and one party-list vote. Under this system, a single candidate only needs a plurality (not a majority) of votes to win. This is not the case in Romania, where there is no party list vote and where only candidates who gain an outright majority win their seat, with the remainder of votes going through a redistribution process. However, I don't believe that these differences disqualify the Romanian system from being MMPR; having two separate votes is not a necessary condition for MMPR. As the article points out, there are many differences between MMPR systems in the world. What appears to me to be a defining characteristic of MMRP is the combination between the existence individual candidates in individual constituencies and redistribution of existing votes to maintain relative proportionality. Thus, I will add the link back to the article. Ronline ✉ 06:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitewashing political biographies is against Wikipedia policies as well

Cornel Nistorescu almost killed two people and you censoring looks more like the Old communistic ways of dealing with less pleasant facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.24.132 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Gas Heart

Please stop restoring the French-language titles to The Gas Heart - Wikipedia naming conventions dictate that all titles should appear in English translation. This includes a quotation from French in which the rest of the quotation has been translated into English. If you are unsure, please consult the manual of style. Kind regards, DionysosProteus (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello friend

Yes good to see you are still producing detailed!!! articles which are articles I prefer. The meatier the better in my book. I recently translated Tenerife which is again the sort of full article I like. Yes i have been a bit tied the last few months but I have created a Template:Expand Romanian which is to be applied only to articles I create or articles which are missing a great deal of content. Obviously we want to use primary sources and probably in places Romania wikipedia is biased or not fully reliable but it is just intended to expand the short articles I create or to at least improve Romanian coverage on wiki. It will automatically place them in Category:Romanian articles needing translation. This may include writers or any Romanian articles though. Best The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Gas Heart

I have reverted the edits you have made to The Gas Heart since I was unable to disentange which were further improvements and which were reverts to the original shoddy state. The original article was very poorly written--often reading like a bad example of an undergraduate essay--and contained errors and inaccuracies. I have gone through the sources and examined them against the claims they allegedly support in the article and made many corrections. I have provided details of most of them on the article's talk page. I have also added new information and further sources. I updated the reference-system because the previous one certainly wasn't clear. Removal of redlinks is Wikipedia policy - consult the manual of style. Any information appearing in the article requires a citation to prove it; this applies to information in end-notes as well as that in the main body. Finally, as I hope you are aware, you do not own the article, despite having contributed to it, and it is not necessary to consult you before improving it. If you wish to improve it further, it could certainly do with it, but my recent edits should form the basis of that, since now it is well-sourced, accurate, and much clearer and better-written. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A video just for information

[11] Dc76\^talk 15:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Well, belatedly. But above all, do return! I hope it's nothing serious again. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma as a Romani group

There are discussion for the creation of an article about Roma as a Romani group, but there are some problems about the best way to do that. Can you take a look, if you have the time, please? The discussion are mostly at Talk:Roma people. Thanks! AKoan (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tags on Romanians

Readers shouldn't take Wikipedia as a proof of anything, the tags are excessive, 4 of them stacked on top of the page, I bet that's the reason they were removed. Can we find one or at most two tags that express what you want without crapifying the entire experience for Wiki readers? Thanks. man with one red shoe 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand those points, but I think it would be better if we'd just remove obvious OR instead of adding the tags. man with one red shoe 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody got to be bold. man with one red shoe 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)