User talk:Dahn/Archive 35

Party of the Roma

Hi! As far as I'm aware, the party is no longer called "The Social Democratic Party of the Roma" but rather "Partida Romilor Pro-Europa" (I don't know how to translate that in English without it sounding awkward, I guess "Party of the Roma, Pro-Europe"). It most often seems to refer to itself just as "Partida Romilor". Thanks, Ronline ✉ 06:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your support

I'm counting with your full support, in case full support is needed. Thanks. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has happened, yet, but in case something does happen, I will give you a smoke signal. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cat

Nice pic -- thanks. Yeah, that wordplay was a bit of fun, reminded me of some disturbance that happened on the corresponding page a while ago; mercifully, that quieted down. At any rate, yes, I'm back in WiFi land, so I can write more often, but I may flip in and out, depending on how busy I get. By the way, I completely dropped the ball on Caragiale while out of range, sorry -- que pasa on that? Also, I started putting in some of the stuff from the Compton article -- will continue, hopefully. Turgidson 15:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

About VT article: We can discuss this in more detail on talk page there, but off the top of my head, the first impression I get by looking afresh at it is how long the "controversy" section is when compared to the rest. How about trying to chop it up into pieces that are more manageable, and digestible to the (novice) reader? To have a term of comparison with someone else in the profession of VT, I looked up Category:American political scientists, and I picked from there the most recognizable name (to me): George F. Kennan. It's actually FA article -- not bad, eh? Surely Kennan was caught in controversies of his own (he was right there at the start of the Cold War, designing the containment policy, after all), though surely they were of a more gentlemanly tone than that employed with respect to VT. But still, maybe there is something to be learned from that FA article in terms of how to design the page. Here's a concrete proposal: How about having sections based on various phases of his career (with of course the main one on the VT Commission), and then within each one of those, a subsection about whatever controversies ensued? At any rate, what I'm trying to get at is that one should strive to put the emphasis as much as possible on the actual work (or impact) of the subject, before dwelling on the controversies that may occur in the process. Now, looking at Category:Romanian political scientists, we do have some very high quality articles there, too: Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu and Constantin Stere come to mind. So my question is: can one redesign some of the formatting into sections, the flow, and the emphasis of the VT article (eg, a bit more about achievements and impact, and with controversies more in a subsidiary role than a dominant role), so as to bring it closer to GA or even FA status? Turgidson 03:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm being distracted now by a rather upsetting Cfd that got me hoppin' mad, so let me try to tune back to this (quieter, for now!) subject. Yes, I also thought about the fact that those controversies are so entertwined, that it would be very hard to separate them in neat little subsections. But I see you got some good ideas on how some of that could be achieved -- I think it's worth pursuing. One more comment for now. You say: "I was able to find comments on the fact that he has since become a person firmly on the right, and a committed pro-American". I personally have no knowledge of his stance on current issues, but here is a quote from the Compton article that I think backs your sources: "He has also drawn criticism for supporting the war in Iraq. "Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction," he has said of the deposed Iraqi president." So I think it's worth pointing that out at some point in the article, but perhaps not in the "controversies" section, which deals almost exclusively with things Romanian, right? (And, at any rate, what would be controversial about supporting the war in Iraq? Just kiddin'.) Turgidson 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to cool off; fun though to see Mikka and I agreeing on something, for once. At any rate, back to VT: good find with "interiorul gnozei". Things like "Cautarea "firului rosu" pe relatia Marx-Lenin-Stalin nu era un demers neaparat nou si care sa legitimeze critici dure. Acest lucru fusese facut, printre altii, de catre Soljenitin. Noutatea era insa introducerea, de catre Vladimir Tismaneanu, a dezbaterii asupra "responsabilitatii ideilor", cu un puternic accent etic, precum si originalitatea analiticii curentului revizionist" could easily be paraphrased or even quoted into the article, I guess. As for "Views and contributions" - sure; what would be good though is to add there (as it looks like we both agree) another dimension to this article, and discuss how he engaged in the political and scholarly debate in the US, where, after all, the main part of his career has been. It would be good to have more sources (in English!) on that... Turgidson 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Being "right wing" is all relative -- it's a bit like that famous New Yorker cartoon by Saul Steinberg (hey, I didn't know he was from Romania -- I just found out!) Be that as it may (and I'd be happy to discuss the concept at length at some point if there is a forum for that), looking at the specifics of the manifesto that VT and others signed, it sounds pretty centrist to my ear, especially from an US-centric point of view (maybe even center-right by today's standards). Sort of like this senator, if you need someone well-known as a reference point. Sounds about right? Turgidson 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The definitions of right vs left are fluid, both with respect to space (US vs Europe, for instance), and time. The same goes for individuals, whose political viewpoint oftentimes changes quite a lot over a lifetime. Neoconservatism is but one instance of this phenomenon. The intellectual odysseys of George Orwell or James Burnham or les nouveaux philosophes, or even Christopher Hitchens to give a more recent example, are well-known. (Examples come immediately to mind of movement in one direction, which sounds to me the typical direction as people mature, and get "mugged by reality", in the apt phrase of Irving Kristol, though I'm sure many examples of movement in the opposite direction can be found.) In a different vein, though, keep in mind Caragiale's dictum about "românul imparţial" (think of the title of this section!): does it only apply to his place and time, or does it have more general meaning? At any rate, I'm digressing — not sure whether any of this is relevant, but maybe it's good to keep in mind some of it when looking at particular cases. Turgidson 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you should see how the labels conservative or liberal or progressive can be turned and twisted till they mean anything and nothing. I much prefer describing someone's specific stands on several well-chosen (and relevant) issues, and let others make their own mind where the person fits in that ever-fluid political spectrum. (Unless we're talking about historical figures, where the context and stands have gelled in place, and one can much more easily apply a label, though sometimes labels going from extreme left to extreme right can apply to the same person [even over a relatively short period of time, as in the 1930s or 1940s, much to the consternation of some editors, as we've seen at times.) At any rate, I gotta run now -- to be continued. Turgidson 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, look who's missing from this list. A slip, perhaps? A big grin :) Turgidson 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the mutation of Mussolini's political views in the early 1920s was kind of strange, and I would not pin it on Marx for what il Duce did. But I'll part company on the direct lineage of ideas from Marx to Lenin (after all, we do have the notion of Marxism-Leninism, right?). Now, I haven't given any serious thought to this matter in a long, long time (I take it as axiomatic), but I'm open to hear arguments to the contrary (though I must say the chances of being convinced are rather low). BTW, what does VT have to say on this? Turgidson 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In looking for an answer to this last question, I found a book review that had a quote that seemed usable. (It's from Bill Buckley's magazine!) I couldn't find the perfect spot to insert it, though -- I think it would better in a full section on critical appraisal of his work. Turgidson 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome Dahn, nice to meet you again. TSO1D 15:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Making you jealous

I ordered several old books which my grandmother received last week. Of the books included is this one:

Colegat: Familia lui Michaiu Vitezulu. Analysa critica de Gr.G. Tocilescu, Bucuresci, 1874, prima editie, cu autograf si dedicatie; Familia lui Michaiu Voda Vitezulu. Analysa critica de Gr.G. Tocilescu

I will be receiving the books within two weeks. I don't think I'll start by reading that one. I will probably start with the books that deal with contemporary sources on Stephen and Moldavia, such as this one: Acte moldovenesti din anii 1426-1502 (damian P. Bogdan). I think that book is included. I couldn't find all the books that I wanted, but I found a great deal of them and it only cost me some 220 euro. That includes some 15 old books which are quite rare. Quite a bargain, ey? I ordered them online. They have hundreds of books on the era that is of great interest to you. Well, that's all for now. Till next time. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Arms of Transylvania

I saw your edits on the Michael the Brave article. The heraldic issue needs to be adressed with adequate sources, I'll do that when I have the time. Off the record, Transylvania's well known official coat of arms dates to 1659, 59 years after Michael's death. The rampant lions holding a sword are described in Vitezovic's 1701 Stematographia as being the coat of arms of Dacia. In medieval and pre-modern times, according to Rezachevici the name Dacia was used either when reffering to all the three principalities of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia or to just one of them, usually Transylvania. Plinul cel tanar 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ca in ograda noastra nationala si ca la noi la nimenea

Inca o data se adevereste arhicunoscuta si rasverificata de pe-acum banuiala de-a mea ca noi romanii nu suntem solidari unii cu altii. Ura de sine? Ok...nu "ura" dar in mod cert un soi de nemernic dispret fata de tot ce tine de propria etnie. Sigur, nu am exact nevoie de "solidaritatea" ta in particular, dar mi se par usor gratuite afirmatiile tale vis-a-vis de Nylon. Exact ce vrei sa dovedesti prin sprijinul care-l acorzi celorlaltor "contrarians" (ca sa folosesc o sintagma de-a lui Cristopher Hitchins)? Vrei sa "te pui bine" cu ei maimutarindu-le opinia? Chiar vrei sa se epureze NyLon?. Exact ce sti tu despre NY si Londra? Locuiesti aici? Eu da, de bunicel timp..Si articolul cu pricina reflecta o realitate pe care tu n-ai cum s-o banuiesti, intuiesti. Pentru simplul motiv ca tu n-ai acces la aceasta realitate. Strugurii la care nu ajunge vulpea sunt socotiti de ea, oricum, "acri". It's as simple as that my friend. Habar n-am daca esti roman si detaliul asta n-are importanta. Dar simplul fapt ca vorbesti romana ca limba materna te face, automat, membru pe viata al acestui jalnic "club" romanesc. Pacat. Il numesc "jalnic", fiinca noi il facem sa para "jalnic". In speta cei ca tine. Sorry. N-o lua in nume personal. "Cei ca tine" e o generalizare, aproape o metafora (trista) daca vrei. Apostolos Margaritis 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cazi în penibil, Apostolos. Te rog să te linişteşti. Dahn 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Face it Dahn, you're anti-romanian... at least i have an excuse.... ;)Anonimu 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he's just a bit too iffy for a reason. I'm not really getting bothered by him. NyLon will survive despite Dahn's desperate backstabbing (vad ca ma "pâreste" acum la Inalta Poarta) and that is what ultimately matters. Hei Dahn! Take it easy man! Apostolos Margaritis 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Doppelganger

THanks for pointing out to me this user... I ought to keep an eye on this, but until now, he hasn't seem to have done any real mischief... Cheers (watch these videos, sad world...) Tazmaniacs

Iffy

When I called you "iffy" I wasn't really aware that there is this definition NO. 4. See IFFY. Hmmm...Now don't get paranoic and don't report me. You can't really prove which of the many "iffies" out there I meant. So let's leave this "ambiguity" in place, you believe what you want while I know what I meant.. No, I would never call u names man! P.S. More and more references are getting piled up making a strong case for the survival of NyLon. See this latest Italian text, the issue is "hot" ...it's "happening"...before our eyes...yes...we need just to open up our eyes a bit and look around. The past is attractive but what really really matters is the "TODAY" the present..Right? Agree? So please, don't obstruct in the future wiki-articles that are focusing on this ongoing "present day reality" if I may call it so Apostolos Margaritis 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

E-nough. Dahn 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

see..Tazmaniacs has common senseApostolos Margaritis 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, snap out of it, why don't you. Taz's comment is in reference to me pointing out that a users has taken a name almost exactly like his. As for the rest: if you continue to spam here and discuss how much common sense I have, you'll only be making it harder on yourself the next time someone brings you to AN/I. I strongly suggest you walk away from this page and cease all form of covert or disguised attacks against all other users, as you are already on your final warning. Dahn 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Surnames

Good question(s) -- I've been struggling with some of the same questions. Still no perfect answers, but a few things that seem to emerge. First of all, it looks to me pretty clear that we should not have both Category:Surnames and Category:Romanian surnames on the same page, since the latter is a child of the former. I've been doing that much as I could, waiting to see if anyone would object before going further. More iffy is whether to treat these pages as mere disambiguation pages, or have them more developed, with something on, say, etymology, variants, relation to place names, the works. I tend towards the latter, but possibly would stay with the former till things get more developed (beyond a disambig-looking page, that is). Finally, speaking of variants: I didin't know what to do with Niculescu: there are also lots of Nicolaescu and Nicolescu out there (and probably Nicolesco, etc, and even Nicholson--I've seen that done). Should those be in separate pages? I'd tend towards a single one, with related names grouped together, and redirects to most common form -- but how to decide which one is more common?? Ah, decisions, decisions... Oh, one more thing: What to do with names that are used as both first name and last name (Ion, Matei, Vasile, etc)? Or even both at once?? Use this stub as a guide? Turgidson 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting more complicated than I thought. So perhaps, after the first rush to get off the ground with such pages, and experimenting with them, it's time to take stock, and see where to go, before things get too heavy to move around or easily modify. One thing to keep in mind, I think, is what the potential demand for them is, and why would people look at these pages, and use them productively -- and move from there. Couple of concrete examples:

• The page on Voiculescu was started by an editor who is a (British) mathematician (or so I was informed by someone else in an unrelated discussion). Now, I don't want to speculate too much, but my educated guess is that he was looking for "the" V., and was taken to the "pseudo" V., and that's why he started that stub, as a mere disambig page. Even though disambig pages are not very snazzy, I'd say let's keep this in mind as a basic, "service" kind of motivation. (In a somewhat similar vein, I'd say that the page for "the" Moscovici is still a redlink, but that's all relative...)
• If a name can be both specific to a country (or ethnicity), but also used elsewhere, it looks that others use both the parent act and the daughter cat, see eg. Boulanger, or simply don't say where the name comes from, eg, Dupont, or don't even say it's a surname to start with, eg, Durand! So I don't know what they're doing with French names and others, but maybe at least with Romanian names this can be done on a more syatematic basis.
• How come there are articles like Armenian surnames, but no Romanian surnames? It may be a good idea to lay out some of the basics in such a "mother" article, which would serve as a guide to the cat, inter alia. While at it, how come Category:Surnames does not metion ro? I just remedied that.

OK, let me stop here for now -- more later, hopefully. Turgidson 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about this business -- to buy time, I added one more: Florescu (surname). But now I realize even the names of these pages are not uniform -- some have (surname) at the end, some not. Maybe this can be decided quickly and painlessly -- and then have a redirect to the alternate form. Here's a thought: how about asking on the ro bulletin board for wider input? Where there are two, the strength increases -- isn't that an old Romanian saying (well, with the implied meaning that 2 is actually ≥2)? Turgidson (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On November 15, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergey Kavtaradze, 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I adressed the issue of the seal in further detail on my talk page. Plinul cel tanar 11:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

ro.wiki again

Just for fun: [1]. I'm to busy to do anything about it. Plinul cel tanar 11:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliade's philosophy

Sorry about my neglect of the Eliade project. I'm still planning to eventually re-read that book I told you about and add info to the article, but I've been extremely busy. For Eliade's early philosophical ideas, I like your idea of creating a whole new section called "Philosophy". Perhaps we could divide it into sub-sections for "pre-academic" and "academic" philosophy (if you can think of better terminology, please use it), and move the info in "Eliade's philosophy of religion" into the "academic" sub-section. The new stuff you informed me about just now would go in the "pre-academic" section. Thanks for looking into this. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your idea sounds best. I agree that having a "non-academic philosophy" subsection would be a bit confusing (what exactly is "non-academic philosphy" anyway?). I suggested that only because I think there's a definite continuity between Eliade's early philosophical work and the philosophical name-dropping in his later "history of religion" writings. In my own humble, un-professional opinion, Eliade seems to have always remained a philosopher at heart: he clearly still wanted to make his research about religion philosophically relevant, shall we say. But, given overall structural considerations, your plan sounds best. I'll try to check back once you've made the additions and offer some feedback. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 19 November, 2007, a fact from the article Alexandru Toma, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

moldova

why should I be blocked because nobody comes to speak with me about my edits on discussion.--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldova

Hey there.

It's only semiprotection to release the anon-IP warring for a while. Editors who have been registered for more than four days can still edit the article.

For your reference, however, we always protect whatever version is current regardless of what it is (unless there are attacks, or legal problems). This is to avoid both the possibility and perception of "taking sides" in a dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 18:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Proverbs

Yes, I'm also concerned about the (real) potential of getting into disputes of the sort "well, that's a well-known proverb, we've had it in English since before the Norman conquest" -- vs "no, no, no, it's an old Daco-Roman proverb" kind of thing (I'm exaggerating a bit, but I've had conversations along those lines outside WP with some good friends of mine). On the other, one needs to be bold at times, otherwise one just gets daunted by the task, and reverts to the default value, which is—0, zip, nada, zilch. OK, having said that, yes, I agree, in this case, it may be better to proceed from the top down (instead of the bottom up approach, which I normally favor), and develop first the "mother article" for Romania proverbs -- perhaps pointing initially just to the existing list. So, to mix some metaphors, who's gonna go first to the mountain — the chicken or the egg? Turgidson (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

İbrahim Müteferrika

I don't see why you removed the reference to The Republic of Letters and the Levant. While you are correct that the book says a lot about this man, and you personally might find this sloppy referencing, this is no reason to remove it altogether. You fix something you consider "sloppy", you don't remove it. This reference is particularly interesting right after that sentence, since many old references refer to Muteferrika being a Calvinist originally, whereas this book discusses that topic in detail and therefore is an important reference for the particular sentence it was put next to. Erkcan (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dahn, your rationale sounds totally reasonable to me, but it is missing something. Unfortunately, we do not have a reference to Muteferrika being a Unitarian originally. The web reference which is cited all around the article mentions that he was a convert, and nothing more. In principle I am in favor of having almost everything cited in wikipedia and in this case it is more important because multiple resources had conflicting discussions in the past and this book summarizes the discussions and makes a concrete conclusion on the topic. When I added this reference, I was thinking of people who could compare other sources and wikipedia and when they see a conflict, they might follow up the reference given. Erkcan (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Page 266. Though having read the actual paragraph itself, I must admit the book does not discuss the previous conflicting viewpoints in detail, it simply mentions what was long been believed about him and that recent research revealed that he was Unitarian. Still better than having no references, I think.Erkcan (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Finland

Thank you, and many thanks for your support. And I still owe you a reply on various issues - coming soon! Biruitorul (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just what we needed, I suppose: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Biruitorul (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Only to you, Dahn: not even I ever give much thought to the PNC! I picked blue from the flag: yellow can't quite be seen, and red... Biruitorul 02:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An MP promoting himself here? Why not? Also, a great biography here -- I love the explanatory comment in small letters! Biruitorul 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Your" articles

Why don't you have a list of your major contributions, like others do? some of yours are really interesting, but they are lost among the numeorous other stubs and low-level articles created everyday.Anonimu (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but, to be frank, I lost count. (I remember I wanted to count my DYK entries for some contest, just for fun, but it was just too much trouble finding them in the pile - especially since they forgot to credit me for two or three of them.) Also, I picture a list would be sitting like bait for, well, you know... Dahn (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 21 November, 2007, a fact from the article Petre Borilă, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ionut Dimofte Name

Hello, I´m a wikipedian from Portugal and I would like to ask if you don´t mind to change the spelling of the article about the Romanian rugby player Ionut Dimofte to the correct form in romanian, with a sign under the t, since I´m unable to do that. Thanks ! Mistico (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of Teohari Georgescu

Again, thank you for your constructive observation. Let me first explain why I consider it constructive: It will help place correct tags and usage rationale for this, and consequently for most of the images I have recently uploaded (those that have or might have similar character as this). It will thus prevent unfair usage.

Regarding the image, I intended to use it to illustrate the article of the person Teohari Georgescu, and that of the public function which the person has hold for 7 years. I do not know whether usage of it elsewhere in WP is ok or not. Perhaps we can inquire from someone who is responsible for copyright-related issues on WP. I definitively do not intend to cause any disruption or to infringe on anyone's rights. But I am equally committed to the usage of this photo everywhere legally permitted.

I do not understand exactly what do you mean by single. The only thing I see in the copyright tag is "to illustrate the object in question" within Wikipedia. That illustration is in his article, but also in the article Securitate. At least in my understanding of the word "illustrate". Obviously, we can require the WP community to comment on the meaning of the word "illustrate", and if there will be a general view that placing it anywhere else would be violating some legal right, then I definitively do not intend to be stubborn. Now, in practical terms, obviously it has no place in other articles than Teohari Georgescu or those directly related to his life and/or activity. I intend to keep a size 10pt copy of it on my user page, just as a record of the images I uploaded. I doubt that the two users that currently have a link to it on their talk pages (placed by me) would need more than just a link to the image (not the image itself). So I do not see any actualy practical problem. But we definitively can debate the issue for the sake of theory: whether it is ok or not to use it somewhere else on WP. :Dc76\^talk 13:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Thank you. :Dc76\^talk 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Petr Ginz sketch

Hi, your statement about the status of the image is incorrect. The image is reffered to be in the public domain, coming from commons. Original is placed in the Yadvashem museum, by the uploader statement it is a screen got from the magazine got by him, thus it is in the public domain. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved discussion to my talk page and left the notice if you don't mind [2]. It became little bit long, I also invited Kirill Lokshin and Piotrus (both admins) to help in this issue. You are very welcome on my talk page to discuss it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, no problem with that. But I think we should continue on talk pages until resolved. Maybe there should be a fair-use in apply, because there might not be a possibility to create free-image copy ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(just out of topic:) Its deletion should be a big miss for wikipedia, that image is backgrounded by a strong story. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Piłsudski

You are right those events are a bit too detailed for the main article. I am not sure what kind of subarticle could we create to include this info - if you have any suggestions, do post them on article's talk (or be bold and start new article). And please do not hesitate to comment at FAC; too many comments are from POVed pro- or anti-Pilsudkitees who want (or don't want) to see the article featured at all costs. Comments from neutral editors are highly appreciated - and needed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pilsudski met many foreign dignitaries and travelled abroad. I just don't see how we can mention one of those meetings, but not others. As for the novel - was this a fictional one? He was a character of many, many novels and short stories, particularly in Poland. Again, this should be described - but the article is already getting long. And again, I would very much appreciate if you could read through the article and comment at FAC at some point (the discussion is probably closers to the end than not).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can always add it and we will see how balanced it is. I just don't want to split it in the midsts of FAC process, as there are some people complaining about the article being 'not stable'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comprehensiveness, remember this is an encyclopedia article, not a book. I have read a 2-volume biography of P. while writing this article - about a 1000 pages. I have seen several others and skimmed through them, as I had with several books regarding specific issues about Pilsudski (most recently, one about P. in caricature and one about death of P.). In the end, I believe Wiki will collect all information - but obviously this will be done through subarticles. For that reason I have not incorporated your information into the article - as it seems to me it belongs to a subarticle, and I simply had no time to create them - as the main article can be comprehensive without the subarticles. If you would like to create a subarticle with that info, please go ahead.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: novels - I would expect this holds true for most major historical personas. I'd rather add this to the book/author pages, but listing that stuff in historical personas article may be overwhelming. I agree with your arguments, but in the end, we need to subarticles. I've been creating many filling various red links in P. article, but I was concentrating on stuff like this, not Early life of Józef Piłsudski or Józef Piłsudski in literature. Such articles, of course, should be created (and one day, surely will) - but I believe they don't need to be created for the main (parent) article to be comprehensive and Featured.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you agree with my argument above that the list of P. appearances in novels would be extremly long, and such lists are not common in other articles? He appeared in hundreds of publications; similarly, he appeared in hundreds of illustrations of photos. Surely their lists are not needed for Featured status? Regarding facism, from what I have read it appears a rather minor and undue point: a few people accuse him of this, more reliable sources debunk it. It seems like something to discuss in detail in some subarticle, perhaps in sanacja - but not really in P. (who was quite openly critical of facism).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: P. and facism. The problem is that all the scholars who discuss it in more than passing agree he was not a facist. Read for example this. Stanislav Andreski in a chapter dedicated to this (Pseudo-Facism against Semi-Facism in Poland between the World Wars) writes: "So long as Marshal lived, the regime exhibited no features pertaining specifically to Facism as distinct from other forms of authoritarianism". Stanley G. Payne in A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 writes that "Piłsudskiite regime... should be classified as a moderate pluralist authoritarian regime that remained in power because of the prestige and charisma of Pilsudski, the strength of the military, and the force of nationalism, as well as an interventionist economic policy." Much confusion results because the colonels who succeeded Piłsudski veered closer into fascism (ref); because of popularity of fascism at that time and people confusing authoritarianism with fascism (and of course there are similarities; there are no ideal types after all). Walter Laqueur in Fascism: Past, Present, Future explains it well: One would hope that there would be no need to define once again the essence of fascism. But it is necessary because in popular parlance it is used quite indiscriminately. Writers and speakers tend to denounce their political foes as fascists... it has become a synonym for a dozen or more phenomena, usually negative in character. Twentieth-century dictatorships may be detestable, but they are not necessarily fascist. Japan in the 1930s was not a fascist country, nor was Atatürk's Turkey, nor Poland under Pilsudski, nor Spain under Franco.. This is compounded because Piłsudski's enemies - primarily communists - accused him of that during his life and afterwards, particularly in People's Republic of Poland early era which tried to demonize the Second Polish Republic (this is discussed in legacy). Now, of course, I am sure we can find a random out of context quote about 'facist regime of Piłsudski' - but it will most certainly be a quote from somebody who is not a specialist in fascism, nor history of Poland (or somebody who was writing to fulfill a certain political agenda). Therefore I see no need to discuss accusations of P. facism in the article - but I would be happy to do so in some other article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Italian Neofascist organizations

Category:Italian Neofascist organizations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –

GA Nomination of Traian Demetrescu‎

An article you recently created and significantly expanded, Traian Demetrescu‎, has been placed on hold until further improvement can be done after first making the clarifications that are needing to be addressed. I have also placed this notice on the talk page of the nominator, SeizureDog. Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well I've failed the article for now due to the two comments asking for it to be delisted until the proper sources can be found. I do hope it gets to GA standard once again, and if so, drop me a line and I'll review it for you again. Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 01:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iordan Chimet, 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.

--≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Rowiki Dahn

I am leaving this message on my own page, to clarify that I am the same person who agreed to use the ro:Utilizator:Dahn account on that project. Up to now, that account was not mine, and was probably usurped as a means to misrepresent me. I hereby state that I have previously never signed into an account on the Romanian wikipedia, and only edited sporadically as IPs automatically assigned to me (most of which I have acknowledged as mine, others being used only for very minor edits).

I wish to have a very limited activity on that project. This is due to its problems in enforcing wikipedia policies, and to its general format issues - problems which I consider endemic and too much to handle for a user who wants to maintain and, where applicable, improve the level of contributions to the English wikipedia. I am saying this for two distinct reasons: I am offering what I consider to be a definite answer to requests for participation in improving its content there; I am self-limiting my level of involvement, to let others know that I will not be readily available to comment there (and, if they should want me to comment, they may approach me here only if the matter will not likely consume much of the time I am investing into this project). Dahn 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dahn! I actually came here to ask you about this sudden change of mind, but then I've seen the above statement. All I can say is: "Be very welcome" AND "At last!" Thank you very much for having considered to join! It's bizarre though what you said about the account, as I haven't seen any other contributions besides those you made yesterday. --Vlad|-> 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you! Yes. well, let's call this my general disclaimer: I don't want to be pestered here by all people I run into over there (of course, you and others I already know here can "pester" me all you want, and, in fact I would prefer you do it here, at my headquarters). What I meant to say in my original statement is that I do not expect to be contributing there much, even though, in theory, I could, and that the account will be quite inactive - I want to concentrate here, and the only reason I contributed as much as I did had to do with some matters of principle that matter for the whole project there (while, over here, I'm a "quirks" person). Dahn 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fsol

Thanks for the ":::" info. But why did you revert the whole article? I just ordered it in a coherent format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsol (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input on references. But still it seems to me that the structure I was proposing was good (in that it showed every critic and every response) and did not omit anything. So I propose we work on that one.--Fsol (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. I think we both agree that this section is a mess. We should start a discussion over how to reformulate and structure everything in a coherent and comprehensible way.--Fsol (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbu/Barbilian

I see that two years ago you moved the page on Dan Barbilian to Ion Barbu. I sort of understand the reason -- probably more people have heard of the poet than the mathematician -- but is this self-evident? His birth name was, after all, Barbilian, and that's how he was known at his place of employment (the University of Bucharest) throughout his professional life. There are spaces called "Barbilian spaces", and even an AMS MSC category named after him; I would argue that he is universally known as Dan Barbilian outside the artsy set. At any rate, I've been trying on-and-off to expand the stub on B/B, and I can write more about his math life and impact. I don't know anything about his poetry (except that it exists, and that he was rather well known for it), but is that so much more important than his math career (which has a measurable, identifiable impact) to justify calling the page after his pen name (instead of his official name)? Perhaps, but the case should be made -- right now, I don't see much about his poetry, except for that quote from Alexandru Ciorănescu that was added today. (Incidentally, how come we don't have a page on Ciorănescu? Looks like he wrote a bunch of stuff, may be worth having an article on him.) Turgidson (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to rock the boat -- let's let the name be for the time being. Maybe once the article develops further, it's going to become clearer what to do. In the meantime, I checked: the AMS classification that uses his name is: "51C05 (1980-now) Ring geometry (Hjelmslev, Barbilian, etc.)" How about this for a stop-gap measure: tentatively split the article in 3 parts (general bio, math career, poetry career), and use in each part consistently a single name (Barbilian, Barbilian, Barbu, respectively)? Right now, using Barbu to refer to math publication is kind of absurd -- that's the main thing I'd like to avoid for now. Turgidson (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, any suggestions on what else to do with this article? I expanded it quite a bit, with stuff I could glean here and there—does it sound too much like a movie plot? I'm still struggling to come up with a better (and perhaps more standard) lead; what to highlight, and what not? — Turgidson (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll try improving the lead, to try and make it more catchy -- am thinking of submitting this to DYK, hope it fits. There's just one more angle to this story that I read about, but I couldn't quite find a good source for it: the lineage going back to Ţepeş, through the Kretzulescus. Unfortunately, we don't have an article on the Kretzulescu family (or a category, for that matter). There is some mention on this in the article on the German guy, but he sounds (well, sounded) like a flake. A bit more solidly, there is a mention in this movie blurb; is that a reliable source? Of course, something like this should be decidable through the established literature, but alas, I couldn't find the ultimate confirmation. If this could be established, besides making the German stuff more understandable, provide perhaps the ultimate hook -- the GUT of Dracula & McCarthy, and all in between! One more question, while at it: Were the Caradja/Caragea related to ILC, by any chance? (I should check the article, but I didn't get a chance).

As for the more mundane question about —: yes, I used to leave a space around them in the old days, but in the past few years I realized the convention is to glue them on both sides to the text, but it still looks funny sometimes (same as for the comma inside the quotes — even if correct, still looks strange to me). At any rate: (1) I'm not adamant about this, one way or the other; (2) Looking at the manual, I now realize perhaps the best is to use the {{mdash}} template—sort of like for dates: I'm not quite sure what it does, but perhaps the reader can set the defaults on how to treat it, as for dates. That would probably be the best solution, but I don't quite know, I need to experiment first. Turgidson (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Aw, shucks—I knew it was too good to be true! I did waste some time trying to trace that story of the granddaughter (some blogs and such repeat it), but I got a bit suspicious when I could not find solid corroboration—that's why I didn't put it in the article. BTW, I didn't know about that AfD, but if you ask me, it was the right thing to do—there is no much there, just lightness of being (what a great movie that was!) Turgidson (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I read the book, a very long time ago, but it's a suppressed memory: despite his bitching about how they messed it up, I think the movie is better than the book, and I only recall the latter. And Juliette Binoche was just great in that movie—and they don't even mention it in the lead to her article! Turgidson (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, who knows, maybe Radu Mihnea has some kids, after all? Looks like the www is chock-full of people who claim to have some connection to VŢ: apparently, even Ulysses S. Grant had something to do with him, through the Cantacuzino. Didn't someone or another say, "Cum nu vii tu, Ţepeş doamne, ca punînd mîna pe ei / Să-i împarţi în două cete: în smintiţi şi în mişei / Şi în două temniţi large cu de-a sila să-i aduni..."? Turgidson (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea about Scrisoarea a III-a: come to think of it, it's totally odd there's no article on it. Unfortunately, I have only K-12 knowledge of it, but I'd be interested in finding out more about the hidden meanings there. About that party: I don't know much about current wheeling and dealing, but I must say I was rather surprised to learn who they sent to the EP. As for the caltaboş guy—well, 'nough said. I'll have a shot of palinka to forget about it. Turgidson (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just felt the need to blow a raspberry in the direction of you two guys :P :P :P -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dahn: Thanks again for the pointers on the lead—that helped. Speaking of Brianna, here is a 2001 New York Review of Books article by Tony Judt. It's a rather jaundiced view of Romania: to set the tone, he starts with her posing in Mircea Dinescu's Plai cu Boi, and segues into the "nightmare of post-Communist political meltdown". Oy, boy oh boy. Turgidson (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those diffs you added at DYK -- hope they help. (I'm rather nevous about the process there, I kind of avoided submitting, since I don't quite know what works and what doesn't, and what it really takes to write a catchy hook.)

As for Tony Judt: Olteniţa is in Moldavia? Hah, I wonder whether that would make Anittas laugh or cry... Generally speaking, I found Judt at his best with older history, but a hit-or-miss when it comes to recent stuff, especially the economic aspects. Maybe the piece dated real quick (especially after 1/1/07), but it almost looked like he was talking about another country when he was comparing (unfavorably!) the Ro quality of life to that of Peru, Libya, or Lebanon. At any rate, I still think he's a very good source for the 1940s--1950s, but I'd shy using him for, say, the 2000s, based on such bloopers. (Although I must say I found his metaphor for the 2000 election quite apt.) One more note: I found his very first note really funny: thanking ro:Mircea Mihăieş for bringing Plai cu Boi to his attention? Boy, talk about damning that guy with faint praise! Turgidson (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny article from Ziua! Bayonet attack? That D.E guy, whoever he is, is hyperventilating. By the way, I shouldn't be so harsh on Plai cu Boi. I haven't really looked at it, just saw an issue on a stand close to the Benetton Store once a few years back, and remember thinking it was a great play on words, but not much more. And, I still can't visualize Dinescu as a neaoş version of Hef, the way Judt does—too much of a culture shock. But I'll give it a second chance next time I pass by across Cercul Militar Naţional. (Hey, why is that a redlink? We have a nice pic from Jmabel for it!) Turgidson (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ABP

Oh, yes, indeed. Which reminds me, we should do likewise with Eliade's infobox (and in-text too): here was the initial discussion; I've lost immediate contact with those sources but I'm sure I could retrieve them easily. Regarding my planned oil industry in Romania article -- 1 & especially 2! Beautiful articles! I wonder if we couldn't get rid of some of Nergaal's stuff on copyvio grounds: this is the first paragraph of this, for instance (and neither is written in English, but never mind that). Biruitorul (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

O ye of little faith! But yes, you are right to worry. I've heard (only vaguely, and some time ago) that Jimbo Wales had to intervene in a dispute on the Serbian Wikipedia because matters were getting out of hand, but what the dispute was and how it was resolved, I don't know. (Update: this is where I read it.) As you may know, Khoikhoi and possibly others (Ronline, when he was more active there) have tried to rein in ro.wiki's excesses, but to little avail. I suppose any cleanup operation would be long and tedious. Your first task should be to identify any interlocuteurs valables among the admins there. We know Andrei Stroe to be a good guy. How about Emily and Laurap? If this road turns out to be a dead end, then someone with special oversight might help. Jimbo is one option, but maybe a meta figure like Anonymous Dissident or Thunderhead. The Catholic saying comes to mind, if you can't pray to the Father, pray to the Son; if you can't pray to the Son, pray to the Holy Spirit; if you can't pray to the Holy Spirit, pray to the Virgin Mary. So my idea is to start with the "Virgin" and move up slowly to the "Father" -- that is, if you have time and energy; I admit this is a daunting prospect. Biruitorul (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, best of luck. A pretty rough start (almost a straight translation from ro.wiki) -- no real references, no mention of architecture or film, a tacked-on conclusion -- but it is a start. I see you mentioned the anti-Arghezi essays elsewhere, and this one meshes with the A. Toma article somewhat smoothly, so bringing it up to standards shouldn't be too hard (plus we may have a couple of images to use), but it will take some work. Biruitorul (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on that corrupted reference. A couple of further thoughts (I see this as being just in the opening stages). Right now, the article assumes de-Stalinization occurred in 1953/56, but of course there's the quite convincing Tismăneanu theory that it never really occurred. But there still was some sort of a thaw, and with that the end of "classic" socialist-realism. Yet we still need an idea (based on sources, which I'm sure exist) when the phase came to an end ('53? '56? A bit later?). Also, are there sources linking the Ceauşescu personality cult to socialist realism? I couldn't say for sure, but based on what's available, that section could either end early (pre-1965) or be broadened to cover the Golden Age. Of course, the cult of Stalin did form a big part of the classic phase, so it's possible some writers have made the link. Then there's also the Gheorghiu-Dej cult - I remember reading an essay on that once; I forgot where, but that too existed and may have influenced the arts. Anyway, just some ruminations. As you can tell, the intersection of Party and arts/culture is an area of interest to me (and I imagine to you). Maybe even a mention in the PCR article of this area, if relevant. And then there's the whole related subject of propaganda (something on these lines?), of Leonte Răutu, just waiting to be explored. Biruitorul (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

More to come, but first, for what it's worth, the author sort of restated the obvious: [3]. Do I ask him for a page number, or what? Biruitorul (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let's forget about proletcultism for a little while...Crăciun fericit! Biruitorul (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way - of possible interest. Biruitorul (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Romanian proverbs

Hi Dahn, I was discussing with Turgidson about building a "Romanian proverbs" article. However, I just noticed that it was already deleted once [4] Do you have any suggestion about recreating it, do you think we'd be successful in keeping it? I'm also working on some basic structure here User:AdrianTM/Sandbox can you lend a hand or give me some suggestions (is this a good start -- I'm talking about structure) feel free to edit that sandbox if you have time. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re

On one hand you may be right... on the other hand it sort of leaves me as the lone anti-dacomaniac ranger and reinforces rumors about my hidden 4GWar agenda. Anyway... there is this ideea I've had... have you seen the map illustrating the article? A masterpiece on its own! Do I take it it's in the public domain now? Cause if it is... we may find it useful afterall... Plinul cel tanar (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

License

For your own edification: [5]. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, your defiant attitude is unplaced. The images of the churches in the article en:Roman Catholicism in Romania are alfabeticaly classified, sure after the name of the village, not after the name of the commune. For example, the church of Şandra is at Ş, not at B, from comuna Beltiug. Please understand that the place of the church in Babda is at B, not at C. Thanks! --Mihai Andrei (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Some stuff

Yes I noticed that, at that time it was only the economic articles and I was tied up with other stuff and didn't consider the pattern that evident although an alarm light started to blink. What should we do, start a checkuser? -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you noticed you should ask, I didn't talk to Alex Bakharev he probably watches that page, I think it's a good idea to contact somebody who knows Bonnie's ways. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, it was nice practice (of WP:AGF). --Illythr (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ro wiki... again

I'm sorry about what happened, I can't help feeling at least partly guilty for what happened, I mean I've been pestering you about editing there and all... To be honest I'm not all that surprised, you need to work your pedagogical skills real hard to make a point there. I believe we both know that the problem is cultural... and to be honest they have to work things out themselves. Forcing their hand by getting the foundation into this will only reinforce their conviction that a secret anti-Romanian society is controling wikipedia. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for being careful. If you do need my input, with a deposition or anything, I'm ready to help. Things have definitely gone out of control and the sad thing is that few people dare make their voices heard. For fear, most probably. The days when everyone could say what they thought seem to be gone. — AdiJapan ☎ 19:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pilsudski 2

Thanks for commenting on that disruptive editor. I would love to improve the article further, but as I outlined previously, the issues we discussed would make good subarticles, but are too detailed for the main article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have added a note on those issues to the article. To properly review those works would be fascinting - alas, it would also constitute a research equal at the very least to a creating professional review article; and as much as I'd like to do it - I don't have time for the project of such magnitude (particularly I have to write a similiar review for my PhD thesis in the coming months, albeit not on Polish history).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

User:Piotrus and friends, in the midsts of Wigilia, wish you to enjoy this Christmas Eve!

Darwinek wishes you a Merry Christmas!

Hello Dahn! I wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best in the new year. - Darwinek (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Valentin Toma

Hi -- I stumbled over this guy while searching for some info about Luca. Looks like a novel take to me -- a contemporaneous left-wing (Trotskyist?) critique of the Communist regime in Romania, circa 1948. Here and here is more about the fellow. I have no idea how significant this is, or how notable the subject is, though the journal where he published some of his work looks notable enough (it rates a WP article). At any rate, maybe it's worth developing into an off-the-beaten-track article? I don't have much experience with the milieu, but I'm game to give it a shot (if nothing else, to figure out who he was talking about in some of those veiled references here), if it seems worth the while. Turgidson (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, no rush, see how it goes — I figured I'd put the idea and links in writing before I lost the lot in the shuffle (I gotta start a sandbox or something where to store odds and ends like this—a New Year's resolution!). The International Institute of Social History mini-bio sounds tantalizing, there is nothing clickable there, alas. BTW, that Institute looks like a potential treasure-trove of archival material relating to some of these figures; has info from there been used before at WP? Turgidson (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

About IISG: Hah, I see I was trying selling coal to Newcastle—or, as they say somewhere else, cucumbers to the gardener. Perhaps they'll go digital at some point, though I imagine it would cost mucho dineros to scan all those hundreds of linear meters of archives. Ro.wp: I tested the waters recently, but it looks like a pretty unfriendly (and frantic) place to me. I may try adding stuff now and then, but as of now, I better pace myself—it's a zero-sum game, and there is that much total energy I can devote to wp; spending it on gut-wrenching fights is not my idea of fun. But I'll keep my eye on it, and may say more if and when it looks like it may make a difference. Turgidson (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)