User talk:Dahn/Archive 30

re: constantin cantacuzino

I made that redirect because "Constantine Cantacuzino" and "Constantin Cantacuzino(aviator)" were exactly the same article. If you want to make an article about the writer (or historian, whatever he is) please make a new one. I wouldn't make a redirect if they were 2 different articles. I see no reason to undo my redirect. Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 11:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way see this link showing cantacuzino (with 43 kills) linked "Constantine Cantacuzino". It's obvious that both articles ("Constantine Cantacuzino" and "Constantin Cantacuzino (aviator)") were about the "aviator". Eurocopter tigre 11:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. The article about the writer did not ever exist. There were just 2 identically articles about the aviator, and I make them one. How is posible to be "plenty of links to "Constantin Cantacuzino", referring to the 17th century guy" if the article about the 17th century guy didn't exist?? Eurocopter tigre 12:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about them. Anyway it was no point to keep the "Constantine Cantacuzino" page. Eurocopter tigre 12:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that your opinion is wrong because the article should be named after the real name of the person in case, it shouldn't be translated in other languages. Maybe you should make a redirect called "John Creanga" for Ion Creanga (for example), I don't think many people will agree with this. Eurocopter tigre 12:41, 26 April 2007(UTC)

Ok, I agree with you but, frankly, I didn't like your reaction to my redirect. Anyway, everything should be ok now. Cheers, Eurocopter tigre 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. The fact is that I had big plans for the article and I was a little bit hurrying, it was my mistake. Anyway, it's good that somebody pays attention to such things.Cheers Eurocopter tigre 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Renaissance Front, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sebastiani

I was unaware that there was any such MoS discussion, and just assumed that it was incorrect. I'll move it back. Corvus cornix 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't moving it because of any sort of discussion on the subject, I just saw that it had been edited recently and just assumed (you know how that works) that the capitalization was wrong. I have no opinion one way or the other, so if that's where it should go, that's fine with me. Corvus cornix 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Corpul Muncitoresc Legionar

On 1 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Corpul Muncitoresc Legionar, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 21:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces

Hi, I know that you are interested in Romania and Romania-related articles. I see some huge potential for the Romanian Land Forces article to become a Good article (or, why not, in the future it could be a featured article; see Russian Ground Forces - a former featured page). I'll do my best to expand and improve this article, but I think it's not enough and I may need some help. Are you interested in cooperation? Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated re

Hi, Dahn, and thanks for the reply. I'll get back to you, eventually. But first: I just noticed the Băsescu article is spinning out of control - did you see that? This really does it for me. Biruitorul 05:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - most of that crowd seems to have a rather feeble grasp on what Wikipedia is about (a problem which is only multiplied at ro.wiki). I guess we should wait until late May when things settle down (if they do), but on the other hand lots of people will be viewing that article in this period. Ah well, it's why I so prefer working with dead men's articles, and I commend publications like the Dictionary of National Biography (UK) or Dictionary of American Biography for listing only dead subjects. Biruitorul 05:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some sort of tag/talk might work. You are right that many living subjects have great articles. However, one of the things I most cherish in an article is stability (which of course is possible, relatively speaking, in a living person's article, but always more tentative). You get stability, say, with the FRN or the Lupeni Strike, but clearly not with Băsescu. Indeed one of the things I most like about Citizendium (no, I'm not going to the dark side, but I do admire this) is that they do declare articles to be "finished" after a certain point. New edits might be allowed if something big turns up, but there is that sense of finality. Take for instance Charles Darwin - it's existed since 2001, it recently made FA - is that much more improvement on it possible, or would it not be better to simply say, "This is done. Move on to another article"? At some point things start to look too perfect (like all the little flags in the infoboxes).

I hadn't thought about that, but yes, having only dead people's biographies could lead to a spate of wiki-murders. I can just see the headlines: "Sri Lankan Prime Minister gunned down by demented assassin "Bonaparte", who says he wished to get an article on him into online encyclopedia..." Biruitorul 06:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, one more point on Sébastiani: was he Catholic? I imagine so, and this would allow us to fill in a line in the infobox and a category. If you haven't come across a reference to his religion, I would suggest checking the parts of your sources dealing with his baptism, marriages and funeral, as these would probably make passing mention of the fact. Biruitorul 02:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured article

It's a pleasure :) I also think a lot of your other articles should be nominated for FA, but I don't know if you've finished working with them. I mean articles like National Renaissance Front, Take Ionescu, Christian Rakovsky, Constantin Stere. Cheers, Ronline ✉ 06:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Oltenia

Sunt dispus sa adaug in articol mentiunea ca in extenso si in mod curent (nu neaparat legitim), termenul include astazi si regiuni care nu faceau parte in trecut din Oltenia. Am insa pretentia (si cred ca nu cer prea mult) ca aceasta afirmatie sa fie insa si demenstrata cu surse. Si cand vorbesc de surse ma refer la surse serioase care sa se ridice la nivelul celor aduse de mine. Tare mult ma tem insa ca cei care fac aceasta eroare (caci trebuie sa recunosti ca este vorba aici de o eroare) sunt cei care incearca sa delimiteze regiunile istorice in functie de limitele judetelor, ceea ce e o mare prostie, si creaza asemenea harti: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Limitele judetelor din 1968 nu respecta limitele regiunilor istorice si, de fapt, nici nu a existat in momentul alcatuirii lor aceasta intentie. In lista mea de surse din pagina de discutie a articolului Oltenia am prezentat si lucrari aparute dupa 1968 (momentul aparitiei actualelor judete), iar cea mai recenta sursa este din 2001, deci destul de actuala. Motivul pentru care uneori se crede ca Oltenia se extinde si la rasarit de Olt poate fi dedus din cele 2 pagini de dezambiguizare pe care le-am initiat in Wikipedia romaneasca: Oltenia (dezambiguizare) si Olteni. O "Oltenie medievala" nu a existat, regionimul de "Oltenia" este atestat abia incepand cu secolul 19 (vezi si Sursa nr.30). Teritoriul Olteniei a fost numit in evul mediu "Banatul de Severin" (desi acesta de intindea partial nu numai in Oltenia, ci si in Banat), "Voievodatul lui Litovoi", "Banatul de Craiova", "Valahia Mica". Faptul ca incepand cu sec. 19 regiunea este denumita dupa raul care o delimiteaza catre est nu ne indreptateste sa consideram ca aceasta regiune s-a extins deodata si dincolo de Olt. Accept pareri contrare, dar numai cu surse care se ridica la nivelul surselor mele, deci nu accept argumentarea cu blog-uri (unde fiecare poate scrie ce ce doreste dansul indiferent daca este adevarat sau nu. In blog-uri pot gasi sute de pagini care ma contrazic, dar si sute de pagini care sustin opinia mea. Avand in vedere ca oricine poate sa scrie orice, am gasit pana si asa ceva sau asa ceva. Daca vrem sa ne batem joc de Wikipedia putem introduce si aceste 2 surse, nu? Cred insa ca nu este nevoie de bataie de joc. S-au inventat totusi cartile. Deci, sa le folosim! Am scris ceva legat de afirmatiile fara acoperire si in Sfatul Bătrânilor (vezi posting-ul semnat: --Olahus2 11 aprilie 2007 15:36 (EEST) ). In acel caz ma refeream la Orsova, insa ideea ramane valabila in general cand vorbim de delimitarea regiunilor istorice. Numai bine, --Olahus 08:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Daca consideri discutia ca fiind incheiata poti sa o plasezi in arhiva. Legat de ip-uri este foarte posibil sa fie vorba totusi de 2 persoane diferite. Am vazut ca, intr-adevar, unul este din Canada si celalalt din Romania. --Olahus 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote request

Hi, Dahn. Sorry to interrupt you from fighting the foolish crusade being waged against you, but could I ask you to take a look at these two AfDs? I'm not certain I'm right about them, and I'd like to hear your opinion, whatever it may be. Thank you. Biruitorul 16:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What is this "crusade" about and how do I join it? ;) --Thus Spake Anittas 10:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, two more quick points: a) Notable? I wonder. It does smack of advertising. b) I'm coming around to your position on counties, ie no duplicate or triplicate for ones like Argeş. Let me also point out that we do have the (ghastly) Fălciu County, so we can work on that one article, see what comes out, and then start the new ones in time. Biruitorul 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, never mind about that e-mail, I suppose - I was angry at the moment but have calmed down. On a lighter note:
Look in paragraph 3 here - it claims just 15 Romanian Orthodox churches remain in the world! (Though I expect it to be fixed soon.) The point, though, is that one of the main authors is one of your FAC adversaries.
I found the Procesul Comunismului icon in two unlikely places: 1 and 2. I suppose 1 is because his name is Bluey (ha!); 2 I'm not sure. This doesn't prove that Ioniţoiu didn't use it as a Guard homage (in fact he probably did), just that it is used in other contexts. Biruitorul 03:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I did say no RfA before July 1st, so hopefully things will have calmed down by then. (Though several issues still loom, like the Soviet occupation of Romania business, which went all the way to arbitration without any result...) In fact I'm already back on track - remember when he was destined to be no more than a one-line stub? Biruitorul 06:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles de Choiseul-Praslin

On 7 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles de Choiseul-Praslin, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Hangerli

On 8 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Hangerli, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 02:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Marxists

The Marxist by nationality categories existed before I started to work on them. I just extended them to include additional nationalities so that people in the Category:Marxists would have a place to go 'by nationality. In some countries, all socialists might be communists, but not in all cases. In some countries, all socialists might be Marxists, but not all in all cases. All Communists are Marxists, however. Look carefully at the people in the Marxist by country categories and you will see that what I did was give all the Marxist economists, Marxist historians, Marxist writers, etc, a country to indicate in which country they were Marxists. If they are already identified as Communists in that country, I did not add Marxist. What I did was provide information at the country level that was not previously available. Thanks Hmains 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I touched much of anything regarding 'socialist', based on my statement that Socialists may or may not be Marxists, but I do suppose all Marxists are socialists or at least used to be. I was just working on the 'Marxist by nationality' categories and some of the 'Marxist occupation' categories. I am just using the content of the articles to determine their categories and that is all. Thanks Hmains 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know why you are asking, but I am not sure that I know enough to help out. Could you give me some specific articles and say what you would do about them:no change or change what. I quit editing now. I wrote a note to the other editor was adding 'Category Marxist' back into articles faster than I could delete them. No answer yet. I suppose his ideas have to be included or ? in anything we might take up doing. Thanks Hmains 00:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• First, regarding the 'Marxist historians', 'Marxist economists', etc categories: I don't see that these should be broken out at the country level, but left at the world level. These would be based soley on their Marxist scholarly, Marxist art or whatever These people would also be in the 'foo country' category of the country(ies) they are associated with as they are 'Marxists' from that country. Unless they were also members of a Marxist party.

I suppose your theory works with the (perhaps mostly American) socialists who were not (or at least denied being) Marxists.

I guess the people who are left are socialist and/or communist politicans or bureaucrats. They would go in the 'foo socialists' and/or 'foo communists' and not be double categoried by being in the 'Foo Marxist' category.

I think the above differs from yours, but I believe it is important that Marxists be in a 'foo Marxist' category directly or indirctly through some 'foo Communist' party. Putting them just in a 'Foo socialist' category ignores the fact from the article that they are 'Marxists' from 'foo'.

Thanks Hmains 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• In general, I think at the world level, this hierarchy applies:

Socialists (highest), Marxists, Communists. At the country level, the same hierarchy would apply, but what should be done when the only category in the 'foo Socialists' category is the 'foo Marxists' category or (or also), the only category in the 'foo Marxists' category is the 'foo Communists' category. Hmains 03:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grigore Alexandru Ghica, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 14:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)