| Revision as of 19:53, 26 February 2007 editDahn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers147,944 editsm →Protochronist?← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:05, 26 February 2007 edit undoVintila Barbu (talk | contribs)618 edits →Protochronist?: someone must tell you the truth about your disruptive behaviour, DahnNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| :IMO, your arguments, Dahn, for deleting a legitimate and informative source are transgressing any limit of common sense and incivility, not to mention Misplaced Pages principles and rules. What you do, Dahn, is theorizing vandalism. You simply arrogate the right of arbitrary decide what Misplaced Pages readers have to read and to which sites have they to be “led to”. Your answer to Turgidson is really a monument of arrogance, arbitrary and bad faith. I am, as always, anytime ready to elaborate on my accusations. Please try to understand that Misplaced Pages is not a field where you can freely exert your caprices. I am keen to keep a civil and very calm tone on the Wiki, but this time you finally succeed to make me lose the distance. I find your argumentation in favour of deleting a legitimate and informative source profoundly revolting and outrageous. Revolting because you’re trying to dominate and humiliate co-editors through abusive reverts and absurd and arbitrary arguments. Outrageous because you are breaking the basics of Misplaced Pages spirit. Please refrain from behaving in a disruptive way. --] 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | :IMO, your arguments, Dahn, for deleting a legitimate and informative source are transgressing any limit of common sense and incivility, not to mention Misplaced Pages principles and rules. What you do, Dahn, is theorizing vandalism. You simply arrogate the right of arbitrary decide what Misplaced Pages readers have to read and to which sites have they to be “led to”. Your answer to Turgidson is really a monument of arrogance, arbitrary and bad faith. I am, as always, anytime ready to elaborate on my accusations. Please try to understand that Misplaced Pages is not a field where you can freely exert your caprices. I am keen to keep a civil and very calm tone on the Wiki, but this time you finally succeed to make me lose the distance. I find your argumentation in favour of deleting a legitimate and informative source profoundly revolting and outrageous. Revolting because you’re trying to dominate and humiliate co-editors through abusive reverts and absurd and arbitrary arguments. Outrageous because you are breaking the basics of Misplaced Pages spirit. Please refrain from behaving in a disruptive way. --] 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Stop it. ] 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | ::Stop it. ] 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| No Dahn, you should stop behaving outrageously disruptive. This article is not your propriety. You have no right to decide what is interesting and relevant for the readers. Your behaviour is arbitrary, arrogant and brutal: you first revert a decent and informative external link and subsequently theorize vandalism. Now you are reverting again that external link, provoking a new edit war (the 4th within a week). You are trying to take possession of this article, discouraging other users from editing it. The fact that I am warning you against disruptive behaviour is irritating you obviously. From your perspective, I am harassing and stalking you. No, Dahn, I am not harassing and stalking you. Just try to behave decently, without insulting or humiliating other users, and without arbitrary reverts, and you will not hear about me any more. --] 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hiatuses== | ==Hiatuses== | ||
Revision as of 20:05, 26 February 2007
Protochronist?
The following external link was deleted by User:Dahn:
with the peremptory explanation: "(rm exyternal link to protochronist site - see its "mother" at http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/)". Sorry, I don't understand the jargon -- could you please explain the reason, in layman's language? A google search for "protochronist" yielded only 46 hits, and no definition. Misplaced Pages has no page on protochronist. I understand the Greek ethymology of this compound word (proto=before + chronos=time), but I don't know how widely used it is, and why applying this rather esoteric label to a web page (or web site) ipso facto disqualifies it -- is this a Misplaced Pages policy? I mean, can one exclude info by applying such labels, with no further elaboration? I'm asking this since I was the one who added the external link here, as reference for some edits I did (dates when Gândirea was founded, and when it moved to Bucharest). I was looking for that specific info, and this was the only article that I could find that produced it for me. I just read several paragraphs that pertained to Gândirea, and they seemed quite matter-of-fact and to the point. What's the problem with that? Thanks. Turgidson 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I searched around, and found an article on Protochronism. (By the way, shouldn't protochronist redirect there, just in case someone not familiar with the jargon looks up the word?) At any rate, yes, a bit silly -- I remember all that Burebista/Zamolxes stuff from Ceauşescu's days -- but rather harmless, looks to me. So let me then repeat the question: why go delete valid references from such sites? This smacks of censorship to me, and that's a much worse memory from Ceauşescu's days than anything having to do with the Decebal cult. I personally do not think of Cluj as Cluj-Napoca, or Turnu Severin as Drobeta Turnu-Severin (so I guess that makes me a non-protochronist par excellence?), but then again, it doesn't really bother me, one learns to live and let live. As the French say, il faut de tout pour faire un monde. Also, the protochronist label is rather parochial, if I may say so... Turgidson 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well:
- the link is in Romanian, so its necessity in the eyes of Anglo-Saxon users is marginal
- no matter what reasons it was deleted for, the link is still available on the web for those who think that they need to see what Dacia Nemuritoare thinks about 1930s Romanian culture (just as they can easily find out what the Iron Guard thinks about Gândirea)
- the info is only partly directly relevant to Gândirea, and, from what I can see, the text is a half truth
- all of the info was since supplanted by more detailed and accurate references
Taking in view these, I suppose that there is little reason to lead readers to a controversial site: they are likely to find nothing there that would add to this article, not even a particular Dacianist POV on Gândirea. Otherwise, it would appear that wikipedia endorses information present on the site (even more so when it uses it as an authority for what are not the source's primary interests). Dahn 11:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- IMO, your arguments, Dahn, for deleting a legitimate and informative source are transgressing any limit of common sense and incivility, not to mention Misplaced Pages principles and rules. What you do, Dahn, is theorizing vandalism. You simply arrogate the right of arbitrary decide what Misplaced Pages readers have to read and to which sites have they to be “led to”. Your answer to Turgidson is really a monument of arrogance, arbitrary and bad faith. I am, as always, anytime ready to elaborate on my accusations. Please try to understand that Misplaced Pages is not a field where you can freely exert your caprices. I am keen to keep a civil and very calm tone on the Wiki, but this time you finally succeed to make me lose the distance. I find your argumentation in favour of deleting a legitimate and informative source profoundly revolting and outrageous. Revolting because you’re trying to dominate and humiliate co-editors through abusive reverts and absurd and arbitrary arguments. Outrageous because you are breaking the basics of Misplaced Pages spirit. Please refrain from behaving in a disruptive way. --Vintila Barbu 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Stop it. Dahn 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No Dahn, you should stop behaving outrageously disruptive. This article is not your propriety. You have no right to decide what is interesting and relevant for the readers. Your behaviour is arbitrary, arrogant and brutal: you first revert a decent and informative external link and subsequently theorize vandalism. Now you are reverting again that external link, provoking a new edit war (the 4th within a week). You are trying to take possession of this article, discouraging other users from editing it. The fact that I am warning you against disruptive behaviour is irritating you obviously. From your perspective, I am harassing and stalking you. No, Dahn, I am not harassing and stalking you. Just try to behave decently, without insulting or humiliating other users, and without arbitrary reverts, and you will not hear about me any more. --Vintila Barbu 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiatuses
The introduction speaks of two pauses: 1925 and 1933-4. The body speaks of the 1934 one. 1)Do we have any information on a 1925 hiatus? 2)Was it 1933-4 or just 1934? Biruitorul 17:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find anything about 1925 (in general, there is very little info on the pre-1933 variant). I also couldn't find a definite mention of when it was closed down - just that Crainic was apprehended in 1933, which may or may not be the same date as when the paper was closed down. There is an important source for such technical details: Eugen Marinescu (ed.), Din presa literară românească (1918-1944), Ed. Albatros, Bucharest, 1986. I used it on Bilete de Papagal and other articles, but, having had borrowed it from a friend, I don't have access to it right now - I'll see if there's anything I can do about it as soon as time permits me. Dahn 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)