User talk:Dahn/Archive 7

Команда русских дровосеков прорубила окна в Европу!

Окна оказались мелкими и какими-то мягкими на ощупь. Провинившихся в недочётах хромоножек посадили на кол... Первый в мире полупроводник появился в России! Это был Иван Сусанин... (Need a translation - drop me a message, I'll try my best :) ) Pre-1915 Russian: Oh, no you don't think it'd be that easy, do you? Russian underwent some significant grammatical and syntactical changes, like the removal of the letter "Ъ" (looks slightly different) during the last 90 years. Also, while Adriatikus might eventually elaborate a bot that'll pick the *right* synonyms in his EnSyn:wiki, you will have to invent all the Russian neologisms of the last 90 years by yourself in your (t)ruЪ:. Still, your task will be somewhat simpler, with "only" some 92000 articles to work with. Good luck to you too, with all those Large Hadron Colliders, Microsoft Windows and semiconductors! A word of advice: English borrowings were at the time a no-no - use Greek and French instead. :-P

As for Quenya - I'd really like to learn that one, along with Gaelic, but my current knowledge (about 3 words) prevents me from being a serious contributor to que:wiki, alas. --Illythr 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eye to eye

Ah, I think i see your point. Well, as far as I know, aside from some neologisms, the difference between CyrMo and Ro is mostly in the script. From my unqualified POV they're pretty much the same. I'm kind of surprised (well, not really) with the viciousness of ~~all~~ many of those unionists who demand the wiki's closure. If not for certain reasonable voices among them, I'd consider it some kind of flashmob. Look at the closuse propusals for other wikis - barely any activity and most of it is "collateral" - voters from the Moldovan proposal "being consistent".

As for the languages, I believe that the point where two dialects of the same language grow sufficiently apart as to warrant them the status of different languages is very subjective and, usually, politically influenced. That being said, I only oppose the closure of the mo:wiki because I remember the moaning I heard from people having to relearn their own language back in those years and that the switch never happened in Transnistria - they still learn it in schools. To sum it up, I don't care about the language or script or official positions of any kind, only that there are people (mostly in Transnistria now), who know only in the Cyrillic script version. As I said before, a translit tool on the ro:wiki would be enough for me to stop arguing, as I think it will help those people read Wikipedia in their mother tongue - Romanian, whatever its official designations may be.

Now, to the other stuff: ...I feel my blood boil - that's my feelings exactly. Ever since I had the unfortunate experience of being on the receiving end of the Moldovan nationalism/unionism, I've come to hate the general sentiment (but, surprisingly, not the whole people). Most of all I hate Moldovan/Romanian nationalism - because I've seen it for what it is, Russian - because such afflictions of kin hurt the most, and Jewish - because *they* should know the consequences better than all others. Hence, you don't have to justify or defend yourself before me. In fact, it was your actions, as well as TSO1D's, Bogdanguishka's (occasionally) and DPotop's (sometimes) (plus a few others I've seen only sporadically), that greatly improved my opinion on the Romanian group of Wikipedians (I happened to bump into our Corsican acquaintance and his sock theatre initially, believing them all to be different people).

PS: Checked mail?
PPS: Hm, I see a little kangaroo court is already set up for me in the discussion. I guess I'll have to see it through for continuity's sake. --Illythr 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I almost finished replying to it, too, but then got distracted again. I'll expand it tomorr... later today with some of the nice stuff you asked instead (it's too much to translate entirely, but I'll try to pick out the more amusing things).

And sent! --Illythr 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get it? --Illythr 21:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phanariotes

I ve sent you a message some days ago under the title phanariotes, but i think you didnt notice it.i copy it here: " Hi again, im back to athens and until i leave again (july 14) i have some time to ameliorate the phanariotes article. id like to discuss with you the following points:

Introduction- there should be a reference regarding the conquest of constantinople and the end of byzantine aristocracy. a reference to the coming of merchants from the aegean sea(especially Chios) and minor asia to constantinople.is also necessary(some of these points are discussed in the starting point).
starting point: more should be written about the pre-1711 period. sthg should be said about panayotis nicousios the first phanariot to become a dragoman of the Porte. We should discuss the role of phanariots as dragomans of the porte and of the fleet.
Negative perception: various historians especially of the left have criticized the phanariots in greece as well. i think i could add sthg on the issue.
positive aspects: same as above.

How do you prefer to proceed? we can for instance examine one paragraph per day or begin reworking the text alltogether. best--Greece666 15:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)"--Greece666 00:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

communist vs socialist

The generic classification of socialism is Category:Socialism, not Category:Socialist parties in France, which should not be used as a generic classification. Maybe it is better if a category Category:Socialism in France is added, so both Category:Socialist parties in France and Category:Communist parties in France can inherit from that category. Intangible 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Category:Socialism in France will not be a clutter category, since it is limited to France and multiple categories can inherit from it. Communist parties are not socialist parties, since communist and socialist are not used here as generic nouns, but as adjectives. Nationalism is an ideology, like liberalism and conservatism, so I am not sure what you should have against this. Actually, I might try for a removal all French Left/Right categories, which seem obstinately used for "just the French situation." Where should Category:French liberal parties inherit from in your world? Intangible 21:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can the "far right" categorization be objective, when you say that "left-wing" and "right-wing" are not objective categorizations? Can a Category:Far left political parties in France objectively be defined? If "left-wing" or "right-wing" categorizations are impossible, how can Category:French liberal parties ever inherit from such categories?

It's useless to call monarchial or Gaullist parties nationalist, because these are different doctrines, and the respective parties are foremost royalist or Gaullist. The FN might more appropriately be called just a political party, since it also functions as a catch-all party, which might even more so be a characterisation of that party, instead of its nationalism. Intangible 21:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that "Nationalism itself is catch-all," I wonder what kind of qualitative definition of "far right" you use. Gaullism does not fit in because it is a doctrine in itself. If there is no difference between nationalism and Gaullism / monarchism, why use the latter two terms? Political parties should be described by their foremost doctrine. Intangible 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: Gaullism is a proper noun here, and nationalism not, it's a generic term. Intangible 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaullism cannot be a subcat of Category:French nationalist parties, since in this case nationalism is not used as a generic term. Intangible 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because each member of the category Communist parties in France is foremostly communist, for example. The same can be said for every other categorization. Intangible 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well back to my earlier comment then, what is a "far right" party? What is a "left-wing" party? A "right-wing"? Intangible 22:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So start a category Boulangisme then. Intangible 22:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then your category "far right" includes heterogeneous members, and is thus not a category at all! Intangible 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But one is talking about political parties here, not the history of France or activist movements, paramilitaries, etc. Every political party has an ideology. If one cannot decide upon the foremost ideology of a political party, then maybe no such ascription should be given at all! Intangible 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I cannot see how "far right" is an ideology. Maybe this is strange French 'language' quirk, but this is not the French Wikipedia. Your definition of nationalism defies the nationalism article. Intangible 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left/right

Thanks for warning me! I've also asked for deletion of Category:French liberal parties. Tazmaniacs 11:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's also asked to delete The Right (France), which he seems to consider less notable than the totally unknown royalist Rassemblement démocrate... Tazmaniacs 14:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose arbitration to block Intangible

If interested, leave comments here.--Cberlet 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boulanger

Hi Dahn,

(you wrote: I was thinking: aren't all Suicides by firearm by definition "deaths by firearm"? Thus, wasn't that category duplication? Is there some special reason for keeping both?

I may be wrong here, but I feel it's important to be able to call up a list of all deaths by firearm in one separate list; this would include executions, accidents, etc. The 'Suicides by firearm' Category lists only those. Please let me know what you think about this.

Good to be in touch with you again.

Be healthy,

Michael David 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn,

Your point is well made about the size and vagueness of a general Category such as Deaths by firearm. However, I am looking at it from a researcher’s POV. If I were trying to make a case against handguns being in the possession of, say, private citizens - to strengthen my case I would want to view a list of all persons who died from a firearm. I would want to be able to call up & print such a single list (no matter how large it is); then, if I wanted to view a list of just those persons who committed suicide by using a firearm, I would want to be able to do the same.

Let me try, using another Category as an example: “Category: Accidental deaths” for instance. This covers a multitude of ways a person can die accidently, e.g., firearm, drowning, falls, the list goes on. If I doing a study of accidental deaths, without the major Category, I would have to call up each type of accidental death individually, instead of having one list that includes all persons. I guess I’m just being lazy, but it does make sense to me.

I’m doing some preliminary research right now on suicide. I am working from the Wiki List of Suicides. I am going to each Article and learning the details of the person’s suicide. This is the type of master list I’m talking about when it comes to Firearm deaths, where the researcher could work from one master list.

Michael David 17:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn,

Actually, nothing is set in stone with me about this. As the research plays out, I'll see what works best.

It was good talking with you again. Hope you are happy & healthy.

Talk with you later,

Michael David 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]