Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 3 January 2007

Where I does the magic

• See archive 1
• See archive 2
• See archive 3
• See archive 4
• See archive 5
• See archive 6
• See archive 7
• See archive 8
• See archive 9
• See archive 10
• See archive 11
• See archive 12
• See archive 13
• See archive 14
• See archive 15
• See archive 16
• See archive 17
• See archive 18
• See archive 19
• See archive 20
• See archive 21

NO

I think its in the past tense. Its too much information. Do you think we should change it back?PelleSmith 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria (World War II)

Dahn, could you please take a look at Transnistria (World War II). The article makes the claim that the Romanian authorities were worse of persecuting Jews and Roma than Nazi Germany. I don't think that portrayal is fully accurate, however my familiarity with this period is limited. I believe that you are more knowledgeable in this field, so I was wondering if you could give the page a glance and give your opinion. TSO1D 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cantemir

Sure. I could just write it out but that's dangerous with old orthography. I have a copy of his history book somewhere, I'll check it out to see whether there is a transcription with his name in it. He is titled Bogdan Beyi and called Kantemiroglu Dmitri, but I need to check out Ottoman spelling. --Free smyrnan 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Western betrayal

Mentions Romania in the lead but there is no subsection. Could you a) remove it from the lead b) write a subsection about this concept in Romania?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Argetoianu

The question marks may be a bit off-putting, but if you wish, you can use the infoboxes I made here. Source: here; also includes a precise death date, which may or may not be accurate.

Thank you for the Irimescu edits. I sometimes smile at the vagaries of the wiki process. A few hours before writing his article I'd never heard of him. I then happened to see his picture here, and I thought he had an interesting face, so I decided to write on him. The other men on the page (Maniu and Tătărescu excepted), not being endowed with similarly intriguing faces (or at least hats), will probably remain article-less for a long while. Biruitorul 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you also for the RfC comment support - it's getting quite heated over there. If I may ask for your opinion on something: Anonimu has slapped a big NPOV tag on Ceauşescu family. But everything in there (save a couple of minor details) is from the linked article. Isn't there a rule that a legitimate source is enough to back what you write in an article? I would remove the tag myself, but I did want to check with you first. Biruitorul 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to engage Anonimu directly (...) and see what he says. As for the disambiguation page, which I didn't know about, I suppose the least disruptive solution would be to add a sentence along the lines of "These individuals were all members of the Ceauşescu family, which included a number of other less notable people, as described on that page."

ro:Evrei comunişti has gained an aura of respectability, in form if not in content. Are the statistics in the first paragraph reliable? Look at the talk page, and read the paragraph starting "Anclation ce descoperire..."! That guy really is a madman! Biruitorul 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone been banned from there? Someone should do an experiment, posing as an unreconstructed Guard member, and see what it takes to get banned. Incidentally, as to the Guard presence in the PCR, maybe we could find a way (a footnote?) to include that delightful rhyme:

Căpitane nu fi trist

Garda merge înainte

Prin partidul comunist! (Sourced quite effectively here)

Regarding Argetoianu: do you think Procesul comunismului is reliable? The infoboxes that I made might be distracting, but we should probably mention all ministerial posts he held and the dates when he held then. Biruitorul 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! Biruitorul 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Mr. Foamete has certainly earned a place in our planned anti-Communist resistance article. Biruitorul 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

What do you mean by "the Russian side of the matter has also blossomed hit-and-run editors"? Can you name any? Thanks, Ghirla 17:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I don't deny that there are Russian nationalists but I'm afraid you can't name any whose destructive activity even remotely approached that of Molobo, Greier, or Bonaparte. The answer is simple: Russian trolls are neutralized by Russian wikipedians, while certain Polish wikipedians encourage Polish trolls, for some reason. Best, Ghirla 17:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah

Indeed. Boogie Dahn. ;-) Khoikhoi 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Romanian Social Democratic Party (defunct)

I'm not sure I understand the reasons behind your creation of this article. There can be several I can think of. Some reasons may also mean that you should have also created articles for "PNL, defunct" and "PNT, defunct". Other reasons may come in contradiction with "no original research". Can you enlighten me? Dpotop 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that PSD (today) = (so to say) PDSR != PSD (between WWI and 194?). But for me PSD (between WWI and 194?) != PSD (1990-200?). Similarly, the political continuity of PNT, PNL should be challenged, if you get into such details. Don't get me wrong, I don't criticise you, but encourage you to go all the way. From you, it may be accepted. :) Dpotop 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What I challenge is the ideological lineage. I have always found that the PNT continuity claim from interwar PNT is bogus. I thought that your re-organizing move could result in some clarification in this respect. Dpotop 22:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Link, etc.

Thank you. That link will be very useful when I get around to using it. Meanwhile, may I direct your attention to this list? If you know of any more elections, do put them in, and also if any of the terminology is wrong (legislative vs. general), that should be fixed. Eventually the article itself will need to be converted into proper English, and perhaps a Polish-style table made for more recent elections.

By the way - and I certainly don't mean to insult your intelligence; I just thought this might have slipped past you - are you familiar with the site-specific search function on Google, where you can search for results from one site only? Here's an example. It sometimes yields rather fruitful results. Biruitorul 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The number of political detainees released in 1964 was somewhat higher according to this piece. Biruitorul 03:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If the term used is "general", then I think we should use that. Anyway, compare, say, with New Zealand, a monarchy like pre-1947 Romania: the term "general election" is apparently used even when only the legislature is being contested. However, republics like the United States or France tend to have different articles for legislative and presidential elections. So I'm fine with "general" until 1946, "legislative" and "presidential" since 1990, and whatever fits for the intervening years (PCR results: 1948 - 93.2%; 1952 - 98.84; 1957 - 98.88%; 1961 - 99.77%; 1965 - 99.85%; 1969 - 99.75; 1975 - 98.80%; 1980 - 98.52%; 1985 - 99.73%). However, I'm not adamant about any one particular course. I only just did the expansion, and I knew you'd called 1946 a general election, so I based by naming partly on that, but we can easily change it at this point, since it's a very new addition.

Eventually, like I did with Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria, I envision an article giving an overview on the subject by tying together the big repression sites/prisons - Sighet, Gherla, Aiud, Piteşti, Jilava, Râmnicu Sărat, Târgu Ocna, the Canal, etc. (with separate articles for some of them, like the Canal, which already has one, or Piteşti, which should). Within that, we can go into more detail about the amnesty. Biruitorul 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do indeed know that game, having played it in the past with Anonimu. With the magic of redirects, the name won't matter all that much. I wouldn't mind fusing the post-'89 election articles, because it isn't that much work. However, since, after 2004, elections will only coincide in 2024, 2044, etc., we'll still end up having separate "legislative" and "presidential" articles. So the question is: do we want "general" for 1990-2004, followed by a split, or do we want to retain the current split for post-89 and keep going with it? As I said, I slightly prefer the latter, but it's not my biggest concern either way. Biruitorul 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let the mergers begin (with admin help)! Biruitorul 04:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hungarians

Do you realize that you reverted to a text with bad grammar? Read again. Dpotop 13:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Read again:

This area that includes the historic regions of Banat, Crişana and Maramureş.

Hint: where is the predicate? Dpotop 14:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As to including Transylvania again, I believe it's normal. I didn't imagine you'll make a fuss about it. You have differences between "historical" and "current". For instance, Moldova != Moldova. :) But let's forget this. Dpotop 14:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin

Speedied as recreation of deleted article. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November) to confirm that deletion was upheld. - Jmabel | Talk 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Template:PockKleanBotCleanup2

Nu ti-e rusine sa-ti bati joc de Sorin Cerin?

Stiu ca vorbesti aceasta limba si nu ne vine sa credem de ce esti in stare.Ultimul articol despre Cerin a fost cu adevarat perfect.Ce reguli Misplaced Pages incalca?Este un scriitor vandut in mai mult de cinci mii de carti? Da! Intruneste toate normele de a fi in aceasta enciclopedie?Da!In 'Timpul Liber' nu a fost vorba nici o secunda de Misplaced Pages Americana ci de acea Romana.Oricum vom creea la nesfarsit un nou articol cu Sorin Cerin,pana cand vom fi lasati liberi sa avem si noi un site al nostru despre acest filosof.Cateva zile in urma rusii din Transnistria au vrut sa ne stearga,acum Americanii.De ce?Nu intelegem de ce ,odata ce Cerin ,indeplineste toate conditiile Misplaced Pages este sters?Nu avem nimic cu tine si nici cu cel cu care colaborezi.mai mult chiar va dorim succes in continuare. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Question

I've always wanted to know this...what does "besh" mean? Khoikhoi 08:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's exactly what I thought. Thanks, Khoikhoi 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you double check this

I wonder how you'd look at the replacement of a reference by fact template here. And the POV change. I have tried to restore NPOV and content, but this is not my region of expertize... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More refs removed, moe POVed language inserted. If you know who'd be interested in this, please let them know, as I wrote, it's not my area of expertise by those edits look highly POVed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of using appropriate talk to discuss your grievances, I see you spamming and forum shopping again. Now we all see what your idea of NPOV is: unsustainable claims about the Dacian chieftain who founded Khotin, about the "vlakhs" who were supposedly documented in the area in the 10th century, about the slave-trading Field-Marshal Munnich, the "Romanian-Nazi liberation" of the area during WWII, the "Soviet dictatorship" in the 1960s-1980s... This is pretty disgusting. --Ghirla 08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On December 14, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grigore Preoteasa, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On December 19, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Piteşti prison, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hungarian minority in Romania

Please, read the section Hungarian_minority_in_Romania#After_World_War_II and tell me whether you agree that the citation "summarizes" well the situation of before 1989. Do you really feel that "Romanians were encouraged to think that all their problems were due to Hungarians"? Dpotop 12:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for help on Cluj-Napoca Reformed Synagogue article. --Roamataa 17:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Piteşti

First of all, great, great work. Second, my tentative thinking was to have one all-encompassing article on the Romanian Gulag. The title might be any one of a number: "Prisons in Communist Romania", "Political repression in ...", "Political prisons and forced labour camps in...", "Human rights in..." We ought to pick one. In this article, I envision something along these lines: a paragraph or two for each site, with links to larger articles if they exist. And of course a template linking the important prisons. Also, this article would not simply be a list - it would tie together some overarching themes, like who was responsible, why it happened, the international context, general statistics on the number of detained, something on the amnesties, etc. Does this help, or should I be more specific?

I will have time for proofreading PCR soon, so no problem. Biruitorul 18:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

One point: would you mind pointing out where Father Calciu is identified as a Guard member in the source you cited? I couldn't find the place, but I don't dispute the assertion - he admits to it himself here, in the section "Eraţi student la Medicină..." Also, I think he would have been in the youth wing, as he was 15 when it was suppressed in 1941. Or perhaps he joined illegally after the war. Biruitorul 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Well, I think "Political repression in Communist Romania" strikes the right balance - it's narrow enough that it excludes common criminals, but broad enough to (theoretically) include arrests, prisons, camps, deportations, etc. Of course, when we get to do an article on topics such as censorship, like this one, then that will be separate, but we'll link to it from the main one. In sum, this should be a good framework, but if you disagree, any of the proposed titles might work. By the way, where should Human rights in Romania be taken? Do we keep it mainly to post-'89, or extend it back to the 19th century? Biruitorul 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I would link this one to Human Rights, although not all communist human rights violations consisted in political repression - there was, one imagines, some torture of ordinary criminals, plus capital punishment. Eventually, something will be done about that too. More to the point, you raise some very valid potential objections, but this is the best I could come up with - I say we plunge ahead. If need be, we can move the page at a later date. However, if you have a better idea, I'd be glad to hear it, and also I think we should consult with a third party (say Jmabel) and even invite Anonimu (though copious "cn" and NPOV tags are a guarantee from him). Biruitorul 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Phanariotes cat question

Hello! I noticed that you picked up on the Phanariotes category. I found your family subcategorization very useful (and added a few families too). A question that propped up in my mind: There are some members of these families for whom the Phanariote description is valid -- for example Alexandros Kallimachis -- Ottoman diplomat etc. Some, like Scarlat Callimachi come from a Phanariote lineage but themselves are not Phanariote.

So how shall we proceed? Should Alexandros have the Phanariote category added as well as the Callimachi family category? What is your opinion? What makes sense? Regards. --Free smyrnan 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ROmafia

I've blocked him. I'm pretty sure it's Norby, after all the man (boy?) has got an interest in castles. La ReVeDeRe, Khoikhoi 05:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Yesterday, I contributed in all conscience with some important and sourced information to the Piteşti prison, an entry created by you, which I heartily welcome and which I have proposed for DYK,. Your reaction to my edits was both unjust and disruptive: you absurdly accused me of plagiarism (!), impertinently asking me where did I get the text from. You already have a record of confrontational and disruptive behaviour. It is deeply deplorable, that a valuable contributor like you repeatedly engages in disruptive behaviour. Please, try to refrain from aggressive and offensive disruptions. If you continue, I am afraid that this will prevent you to ever become an admin. --Vintila Barbu 08:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, I've seconded your remarks; I have some of the same concerns, though I don't consider this a clearcut case. I have asked him for an explanation. - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Warning

As this post and this one show, you persevere in absurdly accusing me of plagiarism. Your arguments are:

1. that “you have admitted to have copied text in order to override your own problems in expressing yourself in English.”. This is strictly a LIE.
2. That my English in the incriminated edit is simply too good for me, ergo, it must be copied from somewhere. This is an insulting insinuation, representing but a further personal attack.
3. that from my tone and “distance to the events described” in the respective edit one can infer another author. This is no insulting insinuation but a paranoia bordering accusation, actually such absurd and arbitrary that it deserves no comment
4. that the exchange we previously had (your request and my answer) can be understood as a recognition of plagiarism; this is simply not true: you’re taking out of the context and distorting my words to make them serve your slandering purpose; in fact, our exchange addressed the art. SLOMR: since this entry refers to facts of recent history, I was concerned about rendering the facts in the most faithful way, reproducing wordings from official documents; against this background, I agreed that this procedure could give the impression of copying phrases; there is not one single copypasted sentence in my SLOMR art. (interesting, how it is always the victim of a calumny who has to clear himself, and not the slanderer)

Your unjust and baseless accusations amount to serious personal attacking. This behaviour is systematic and deliberate.

I am prompting you to produce proofs of your accusations of plagiarism: an original source (be it a single sentence) and an edit of mine reproducing it.

I am still ready to consider your excuses. Should this not happen, I have to undertake the necessary steps in such cases. --Vintila Barbu 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've started an RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Vintila Barbu. Dahn, I'm guessing that you will also want to certify the basis for the dispute. - Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote (re: SLOMR) "Where in an RFC is this supposed to be done?" To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a well-established way to add to an RFC, it's usually done informally. My best suggestion is to be explicit about adding material (that is, date & sign the additions, much as you would on a talk page, in the relevant sections). Since the certified basis for the dispute is basically just a statement of concern and a need to air the matter, I don't think that will create any confusion. - Jmabel | Talk 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Given your remark on my talk page, maybe I should have been clearer. Add your material in the relevant sections (e.g. Evidence) but be clear what you are adding on what date. That makes it clear, for example, that you are adding more material to something I already signed in an earlier version. - Jmabel | Talk 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interaction with other editors

I've received a rather irate communication from another editor about your editing style, and claimed wholesale reversion to previous versions because you reject content or stylistic changes. I have had a quick look around, I don't think there is any pressing problem to solve right now (I get that kind of message all the time, I am certainly not inclined to simply take them at face value!) but I'd like to ask you to take a little more care to avoid the appearance of asserting ownership of articles. This edit is an example. I don't see it as problematic - it almost certainly is easier to revert than to reinsert all the diacritics, as you suggest - but the edit summary reads more aggressively than you probably intended. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 10:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey man!

How's stuff? :-)

Shouldn't the thing read ...because they assume that English language wiki means "British/American wiki"? Just a thought. --Illythr 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just that this really is the English wiki...

'S no problem, man, I know how this is. :-)

Also, I think that it probably shoud read "Where me does the magic", no? Like this. :-) Cheers, me go sleep now. --Illythr 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Dahn, could you please let me know what you think of this edit? I think saying "absolute majority" will mislead readers, making it seem like Hungarians and others were 5% or something. Khoikhoi 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! If he reverts again, could you make a comment on the talk page? Khoikhoi 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Check this and this out. I guess I'm a funny guy after all. ;-) Khoikhoi 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought of leaving a message on your discussion page to ask why did you revert my edits (well explained on the discussion page of the article) without saying why. But just by coming here, I got the answer: it is because Khoi asked you to. We are not kids, so please have a look on the discussion page and then revert your last edits yourself. Alexrap 12:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, could you please check out the comments at Talk:Gheorghe Funar? Thanks, Khoikhoi 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

No problem. Yes, I did manage to get him involved and interested, but no other family members so far. Have you made any similar attempts? Nice "meeting" you too. You're right, this is odd. My suggestion: try Yahoo mail; it's very reliable.

Just now I'm still heavily involved in other (real-life) matters, but I'll try my hand at Ioanid within a few days, unless you have nothing else to do, in which case I certainly don't mind you doing it..

Regarding that list: I tend to side with you. Maybe Păunescu did have some dissident writings, but he was still a thorough promoter of the Party, in addition to being a member. Wurmbrand also counts, if only as a pre-1944 member, which shows he had a real commitment to Communism at one point. Biruitorul 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heimann_Hariton_Tiktin, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On December 19, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Piteşti prison, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Merry Christmas

Hi! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. If you don't observe this event then I hope you don't mind this greeting. :) - Darwinek 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

XMAS gift

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Category:Fascists & cat: Anti-communists

Hi Dahn, just wanted to let you know I made 2 changes at this category which you may disagree with.

• I really think that Anti-communist should be used for individual people explicitly espousing anti-communist arguments etc. not as a generic categorization of groups of people which may have held a general politics which opposed communism. We would otherwise have to add this category to all the other political philosophies which are "opposed" to communism. Then we'd have to do the same for all the "Anti-fascist" philosophies...then the "Anti-democratic" etc.

• I also changed "Politicians by political orientation" to "People by political orientation" so it reflects all its constituent members -- which is what the typical user is expecting under a general heading like "Fascists", just as the category "Republicans" should not be just politicians of the U.S. Republican Party (or even just Republican politicians).

BTW, I saw your reasoned arguments re the list of Romanian communists and why/how people should be included -- the distinction between "believers" in a system and those who might just adapt to its demands after it gains power holds true in more than the communist regieme examples. --RCEberwein | Talk 04:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

On December 27, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miron Constantinescu, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions!! Nishkid64 23:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I certainly would have given you more timely greetings, but there was a chance of your being an outright atheist. However, since you are merely "not really observant" - like a high proportion of Romanians (who still celebrate Christmas) - I am now offering you unreserved Christmas greetings, as well as wishing you a happy new year and congratulating you on the Constantinescu article. Thank you for your compliments on Bărăgan - almost all just a ro.wiki translation - more work is needed there. Two simultaneous Romania-related DYK articles: a first?

Good luck on solving your connection issues.

If I can direct your attention to a couple of articles: first, I (or we) have added some names to the List of Transylvanians, but like the List of Romanians, the criteria on that seem a little problematic. Any ideas as to a tighter standard? Second, University Politehnica of Bucharest?? The old title definitely seemed better, plus (of course) he didn't fix any redirects or the template after making the move. Third, if you care to wade into another dispute involving Anonimu: on Danube-Black Sea Canal, when he asks for "verification", what exactly might he want? Judt is a fairly reliable historian, from what I know. Biruitorul 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work on the Canal article - you've done great work there. Let me just make a couple of points. First, did you read that it was inspired by the Gulag in a general sense, or did you come across any reference to the White Sea-Baltic Canal? I believe that was in fact its genesis, though I don't have a ready reference. Second, I think Socor would be a good basis for taking the article in a new direction - namely, one could talk a little more about conditions, but moreover, a list of each of the dozen or so sites (Năvodari, Poarta Albă, etc.) would be appropriate, I think. It's still a little vague on specifics. I will try to take on this task, if you think it's a good idea. Biruitorul 08:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Regulamentul Organic

Hi and Merry Christmas! Are you aware that Regulamentul Organic has been nominated in WP:FAC? There is an ongoing review there with remarks and suggestions there about the article you've worked on. I think you should voice yourself!--Yannismarou 17:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Lena Constante, was selected for DYK!

On December 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lena Constante, 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 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian Rakovsky

Excellent work! I have a pd photograph of Racovschi standing with Trotsky in a book I recent bought. I will endeavour to upload it and include it. PS. Would you ever consider being nominated for adminship? - Francis Tyers · 12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You wish to know what relevancy all of that vision about territories....

Hi Simply, the actual page states that : In 1947 Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, and Transnistria were incorporated as the Moldavian SSR into the Soviet Union, and the previous Soviet administrative divisions and Russian placenames were reinstated.

Not true, the Moldavaian SSR did not comprise any region of Bucovina, did not include the entire former gubernia of Basarabia and did not comprise the entire former Moldovaian Autonomous Sovietic Socialist Republic. Logically, missing northern Bucovina, the Moldavian region of Herţa passed to Ukraine (impossible, otherwise). Missing southern Basarabia, the Island of the Serpents passed also to Ukraine (highly unlikely, otherwise).

That is about it.

I know what you theorize about. I don't know what point it had in the text about Moldova. I still don't. Dahn 10:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lupu affair

Hello. I notice that you disagreed with the insertion of a reference to an article by Corvin Lupu. Since the reference wasn't essential, my point isn't either, but I think it is nonetheless important. I don't believe I have a conflict of interest here - I just wish to make my opinion known.
1. The tone you used sruck me as odd. Rather than saying, in essence, "don't quote Lupu or else I'll no longer 'enjoy collaborating with you'", how about, simply, "I don't think quoting Lupu is such a good idea"? After all, it is perfectly possible to write about Romanian history here without collaborating with you - just as it is possible to do so without collaborating with me, or Bogdan, or Dpotop, or Anonimu, or anyone else. No one is indispensable. As things stand, you've now alienated him, though he didn't say so openly. Especially with Jmabel's departure, we need all the contributors we can get.
2. Personally, I found Lupu's article to be very informative and thought-provoking. Furthermore, not only is he a department head at a prestigious university, but the paper also has an implicit Western imprimatur - something I know to be important to you - as it was presented at a Finnish conference.
3. When it comes to the subject of the Holocaust in Romania, it is especially important to remain mindful of the dictum, "Unquestioned answers are far more dangerous than unanswered questions." Lupu is asking just the right questions, albeit in flawed English: "What has been started to circulate after 1990 regarding the supposed holocaust brought about by the Romanians, from some points of view, a series of figures and events being exaggerated, in an unspeakable way that has to be rectified, it’s clear mystification of the contemporary history, which seriously compromises the Jews, officials and unofficials, who make accusing statements, after more than 60 years from the events and after years and years of thanking us for the opposite of what they declare today."
He's not making definitive pronouncements, but suggesting that the record needs to be re-examined. Paul Goma puts it more eloquently: "400.000. Cine-cum-când a numărat morţii? Pe ce documente s-a rezemat? Cum s-a ajuns la această cifră? Şi de ce abia de la 1 iulie 1991 a fost anunţată"?
To me these are very reasonable questions, and contrast sharply with the shrill, almost Stalinist ones posed by 22: "cum are de gând Universitatea sibiană să trateze acest caz? Şi ce părere are Ministerul Educaţiei? Dar oare Federaţia Comunităţilor Evreieşti va avea vreo reacţie?" When someone's opponent implicitly demands that he be put in prison for statements - speech - he has made, he is clearly desperate - either at losing the argument, or at not having certain truths revealed, of having a light shined on received orthodoxies.
The fact is that none of us has a monopoly on historical truth - not you, or I, or 22, or Lupu, or, indeed, the Wiesel Commission. It's perfectly possible that this last one was wrong, and that it acted from less than impartial motives (someone should follow the money and see where that leads). Do I deny that some large number of Romanian Jews were killed in WWII? No, but at the same time, I question the official figures, I question the motivation of those claiming the figures, I decry the one-sidedness of their presentation (ie, killing is killing, but it happened in a far different ethical context in Transnistria than at Auschwitz), and I bemoan the unjustified loss of national prestige that has taken place due to these new claims - to quote Lupu, "În ceea ce mă priveşte, recunosc că sunt nostalgic după ceea ce se numeşte demnitate naţională. De aceea, spun adevăruri care-i supără pe vinovaţii de acuzele nedrepte pe care le formulează împotriva poporului român. Nu se poate accepta orice! (...) Ni se ia demnitatea naţională. Ni se fură istoria."
Why the sudden shift in 1991? Why the relative silence until then, indeed the praise for Antonescu freely offered by Jews? Why the high survival rate of Romanian Jews? Where is the documentary proof for the official numbers? Why no mention of the Bolshevik sympathies of many (not all) Romanian Jews and their anti-Romanian sabotage? Some may not like these questions, but I will continue to ask them. Some may consider the Wiesel report to be impervious Truth, but no: it too is subject to questioning. Theoretically, I could accept its findings, but the tenacity with which its defenders guard its findings, their anti-Romanian outlook, their unwillingness to engage good-faith debaters, their readiness to use the cudgel of the law and of accusations of anti-Semitism to silence dissent and censor opposing views - all these point to the notion that they are not telling the entire truth. And furthermore, the forceful suppression of opposing views is quite foolish, as it only breeds resentment, fostering the notion that these are fictions propagated by outsiders in order to humiliate Romania; Antonescu's high ranking in Mari Români is only one indication of this backlash. If the Commission's findings are accurate, the manner in which a people should be reconciled with dark episodes in its past is surely not through threats - Romania's EU bid was in jeopardy, and that was probably the real reason why the government (but not the people as a whole) so readily accepted its findings. Biruitorul 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Happy new year! Please check out my comment at Talk:Eugen Rozvan (which is a great article by the way). Thanks, Khoikhoi 02:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The Hungarian name for "Eugene" is Jenő, which I believe it pronounced "yenner". Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's quick pronunciation guide to some letters (Hungarian letters first, English sound second):

A = uh (as in "duh")

Á = ah (as in "Papa")

s = sh (as in "shut up")

sz = s (as in "snake")

zs = ge (as in the 2nd "g" in "garage")

cs = ch (as in "chat")

As for the y vs yi, I'm not sure, you might try asking one of the editors from Hungary. No problem for the FAC, hopefully it'll pass. Cheers, Khoikhoi 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Alexandru Nicolschi , was selected for DYK!

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)