User talk:Turgidson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Romanian Land Forces

Hi, I remarked 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 might need some help. Are you interested in cooperation? Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good if we expand a little the WWI section and maybe add something about the Romanian Anti-communist intervention in Hungary (1919). Also in the current state section, we may add something about the vehicles recently acquired (humvees, piranha IIIc, ghepards) and the native produced: MLI-84 Jders(I couldn't find anything related to this vehicle in the hole wikipedia!), and maybe the modernization of the TR-85. Could you please try to do these things? Cheers, Eurocopter tigre 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and some ref's are always usefull. Eurocopter tigre 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the WWII can also be expanded. I thing you can name that section "Cold War" or something like this (Romanian Air Force has a "cold war" section). So can you take care of the history part? And I could take care of current state , present structure, etc?? Eurocopter tigre 11:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson, we have big problems with some images which will be deleted until 7 May if we don't put the proper licence tag(TR-85 image, TABs image and LAROM image). I wrote an email to the Ministry of Defence public relations office, but I don't know how soon they will reply me. I don't know what to do anymore and I think it will be a disaster for the article if those images will be deleted. Oh, image copyright tagging is really the most annoying thing on wikipedia. How can we fix this problem? Eurocopter tigre 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I uploaded them. Hope the minister will reply me soon (but I really don't believe that). When you are editing the history section you could add some informations about imported weaponry (the Ro Air Force article is a quite good guide), ex: in the cold war section you can something about imported soviet tanks (T-34, T-55, T-72, etc). Best, Eurocopter tigre 11:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you say about that graphic in the present organization? I think it just doesn't belong there. Maybe we should move it...? I really don't know, Noclador may get upset if we remove it because he worked a lot on it. US Army , Russian Ground Forces and British Army articles do not have this kind of graphic. Cheers, Eurocopter tigre 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson, if you are still interested to help in the history part of the Romanian Land Forces article, I found a good source of you about the sovietization of the romanian army - 1 (page 9). Best, Eurocopter tigre 18:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Operation Sarindar

The saga with Operation Sarindar continues, thanks to user cslot who put it on AfC (Comments) list (see Talk:Operation_Sarindar#RfC_on_this_page). It seems that title of the article might be problematic. May be this article should be renamed? Could you suggest something, or may be it is OK right now? Thanks a lot. Biophys 00:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the only problem in this article is one its editor - Biophys, who employs edit warring tactics to push his own POV. I hope that this is not a case of conspiracy to push one POV in the article. Vlad fedorov 06:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right and I just added the link and changed the expression ref. Braşov County at János Apáczai Csere. I'll check again the policy and if I am wrong I'll put back the old names. --Roamataa 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, you can call it Cluj (usually in colloquial speech it is called Cluj, but the official name is Cluj-Napoca and has to be used). Now about the issue of double names the point is that I just saw places where the Romanian names are not even specified. In case of Cluj anyway, before 1550 there were many Transylvanian Saxons there, and as far as I know they were for a long time the majority. And this way we could start a new debate which name to use - the Romanian one, the German one or the Hungarian one? But anyway you should think that when a reader will read Kolozsvár will have doubts about what's this city. In my opinion in this situations it should be used the official today English name and should be specified the names most used in that time - this way the reader will know exactly what city is about (something like ... it was in 1430 in Cluj-Napoca (named at that time Kolozsvar, Klausenburg, Cludiopolis or what name it is)). Or something like this. I intend to study the procedures and clarify this. I prefer also to use clear and uniform standards --Roamataa 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:GeorgeCScott.JPG

Hello, Turgidson. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:GeorgeCScott.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Turgidson. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Traian Băsescu

Hi, if you are or will be on WP these days, may I ask you to please watch Traian Băsescu, giben that it is tagged a current event. I and Dl.goe have copyedited recently some sections of the article, then an old acquentence has rv it. If you feel like copy editting it, please be my guest. I will not mind if someone edits, even massively, incl what you might guess i would disagree, as long as it is honest copyedit, not blant rv without even reading. If you have time and interest...:Dc76 16:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your answer. My worry about Traian Basescu, as well as about Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina is mainly b/c it is so easy to vandalize them. Therefore, the "vigilante" attitude. Of course, I do not want to pick on genuine editing, even if I do not agree with the idea. And of course I don't like the vigilante idea, but unfortunately leaving such articles in a desastrous state for 90% of the time is worse.

I find very interesting and useful your previous idea with International reaction in SOoB&NB, but unfortunately I haven't had yet the possibility to follow it through. The new article is interesting, and I do believe the links you put are justified. One potential problem I see with it, is that some people can blame of Original Research if there is no scholarly sourse in the article that uses the term. Another aspect that I think should at least be mentioned is that Soviet ocupation was in the mind of some/many Russians a re-colonization of what the Russian Empire lost in 1917-20, so in some Russian minds the difference was not too big than French in Algeria for example, or Japanese in China and Korea. If I will find something interesting to birng to that article, I will. Until then, if you need precise translations from Russian, I am available. Have an nice break. bye:Dc76 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask for help

A Romanian user, Roamataa began deleting minority language names in the infoboxes, see for example Bistra and Moldoveneşti. Indeed Roamataa deleted Hungarian names all over the infoxes in Cluj County (about a dozen villages). As far as I know there was a consensus among Romanian users that they accept bilingual infoboxes (with 20 % population limit), and there was no problem with them in the past half year. Please try to speak with Roamataa if it's possible about his campaign. Zello 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I tried to change and edit a recently deleted article (list): [1]. But does it really make any sense? What do you think? Thank you. Biophys 02:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[Do you have an oppinion about this]?

Battle of Mărăşeşti

Ups! Sorry for the mistake. That's what happens when I read hastily. I'll remove that observation from my comments. Greetings,

Any thoughts regarding the best format for the RoLF structure?? Should it remain like is it now, or should it be changed? Victor12 proposed the next format:

1st Territorial Army Corps "General Ioan Culcer" - HQ Bucharest

• 2nd Infantry Operational Brigade "Rovine" - headquartered at Craiova
  • Three Mountain troops battalions
  • One Mixed Artillery battalion
  • One Anti-aircraft artillery battalion
  • One Logistics battalion.
• 8th Mixed Artillery Brigade "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" - headquartered at Focşani
  • Two Artillery battalions
  • Two Multiple Rocket Launchers battalions
  • One Data acquisition battalion
  • One Logistics battalion.

Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Erdős number 2

The category page says the source used is the list from The Erdös Number Project. They give the criteria they use, and I can see, for example, why they consider Armand Borel's Erdős number to be 3. If you want to use a different source maybe you should propose that on the category talk page or something. Ntsimp 04:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Erdös Number Project says, "Not normally included are joint editorships, introductions to books written by others, technical reports, problem sessions, problems posed or solved in problem sections of journals, seminars, very elementary textbooks, books on history, memorial or other tributes, biography, translations, bibliographies, or popular works." (emphasis added) Chowla and Borel's joint work was a seminar. Yes, this is arbitrary, but it's the only source claimed for the category. If we're going to use some other source, I think it should be explained on the category page. Don't get me wrong; I'm excited about adding articles to the Erdős number categories. I'm glad you've been doing that for a long time. I recently got the number of articles in the Erdős number 1 category over 100, and a few days ago I started going down the entire list from the Erdös Number Project and adding existing articles to the Erdős number 2 category; I'm almost done with the Bs. I'm just trying to get the category to reflect what it claims to. Ntsimp 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that you were right and I was wrong. If the issue of which sources to use had been raised back then, these categories might have been gone months ago. It's amazing what useful resources some people want to keep out of the encyclopedia. But keep up the good work! Ntsimp 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BABEL

Hello there, may I suggest adding language template from Babel to your userpage, so other editors can be aware what languages you know and can help with?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Making rude comments about editor's nationality is violation of WP:NPA, assuming bad faith because of it is a violation of WP:AGF - such user should have been warned and/or blocked for harassing you. PS. Out of curiosity, did you feel my message above was pressuring you in any way?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Vlad. Well, he was blocked for 1 month for, among other things, such incivility. In the future, you can report such incidents to WP:ANI (unfortunatly, a dedicated place to this, WP:PAIN and WP:RFI, were taken down, long story...). Dealing with incivility is not easy and not pleasant, but we cannot allow Wikipedia to be turned into second Usenet of incivil troll haven.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Yes, and I'll fix it. Sorry. Dahn 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Given that it is clearly copyrighted material, I would have to say that the first step is to revert it. However, I have a few modest proposals: since you worked on the text, you could sandbox it to save your work, and then expand on it/modify it; me and Biru were discussing a common project of randomly expanding an article on some Romanian politician of the 1800s as an informal collaboration, and your name also came up in the process - as an editor who may be interested in this. With this in mind, we could pick MK and, say, work together in the same sandbox (at your convenience). In fact, when I proposed this, Biru mentioned MK as a likely choice, and I tended to agree.

Still, over the following day or so, I'm not going to be as active as usual - I tend to take breaks after making major edits (feel free to copyedit, byw), and, as you know, something infuriating is going on in certain articles (making me rather depressed). But, in case you agree with the proposals, we'll start it in due time. Dahn 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Righteous. I guess I will see the sandbox the moment you create it (it usually links to this page, which I have watchlisted). Dahn 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The following is the message I left on Biruitorul talk page, and please let me know your opinion of it:

Your guidance has yet again blossomed: the Project is going to be Kogălniceanu, if you agree to it. It came about by accident in a chat I had with Turgidson, and the idea is that he is going to sandbox is for us to work on. Which is nice, because I have a comprehensive article on all his family to cite from. There is the matter of how to avoid edit conflicts; my proposal is that we use the text already present as a template on which to add from other sources. We then map out a plan on how the article should be structured to trace the main events and avoid repetition, while figuring out what future or present articles link to the page and where (kinda like what we planned with the labor movement); for example, we could have a Main article: Dacia Literară, a Main article: Cuvânt pentru deschiderea cursului de istorie naţională, a Main article: Secularization of monastery estates in Romania (or just links to all of these in the text, depending on what sources dictate to us). We then each indicate our sources - we divide those we all have access to among us, and then we each introduce from his side to the text already in there. More or less the same thing for sources only one of us have access to. The best way to do this is, basically, to add everything relevant from each source, one source at a time (we could each start editing in one go, and mark an edit summary as "done" when we have finished). Sounds like a plan?
Oh, and since it is basically Turgidson's turf, we let him decide on Oxford vs. American English, referencing system etc.

Dahn 14:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Here is what I propose: as an initial step, I will rephrase the text already in there, and add notes to it as a reference. Then I will merge with info from a Magazin Ist article. I'll most likely finish this tonight, but I may have to interrupt it for a while. I left further details on how I think we can go about it from there in my previous message.

Just to be clear: did you mean you prefer American English? Dahn 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect (and yes, I too prefer American - it is just that I was under the impression that you tend to edit in British). Btw, it just occurred to me: we can tag it {{inuse}} when we want to avoid edit conflicts (unless we all tag it "inuse" at the same time, it should work out fine). Dahn 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for everything. I put MK on hold for just a bit - only to fill out a related redlink which I will soon unveil for the world to see. Btw, I'm now aware I left unanswered a comment you made on an unrelated talk page - I want to assure it is not because I ignored it; until recently, I simply did not see it my edit history, and then I postponed it until it is acknowledged that a particular user has flown too close to the Sun. Hope you didn't feel offended, but I simply did not want to give him the opportunity to make other speculations about the nature of my contributions. Dahn 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't notice you were editing at the same time. I apologize for any edit conflicts. Dahn 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cohomological dimension

Hi, I've noticed your good contributions to that article. I just wanted to ask you for a favour, can you, please, withhold from reverting projective resolution to projective module? I know it's a redirect at the moment, but there are a couple of reasons to do it this way. Firstly, sooner or later projective resolution will become a separate article, and it's good to keep this option so that the link is more precise (in fact, even now it's possible to redirect to a section in Projective module). Secondly, there is a danger that someone editing this article will remove the wikilink to projective module that appears twice in the same sentence, once as projective module and once as projective resolution. That would be worse than having a redirect. Please, let me know what you think. Arcfrk 04:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A source you may find useful

Hi. I was expanding the article on Serge Moscovici (with what I could - his contribution to psychology is beyond my reach). Anyways, I found this pdf, which you might find useful for the article on the Soviet occupation (I have taken the latter off my watchlist a long time ago, when I noticed the two sides were simply talking past each other, and unsourced or plain idiotic claims were being introduced in the text). Anyway, the pdf is probably among the most useful third-party ones we will ever find on this subject, and has some very lucid accounts while tapping into sources that are usually ignored. Aside from its immense uses in other articles, see the sections about what the Soviet army was noted for by Holocaust survivors, Moscovici included (the pages are not numbered, but the relevant information is present around the references marked 40 to 50, afaict).

I will probably pay some attention to that article in the future, but it is just too heated for me as it is. As a side note: I don't know if anyone noticed when I brought it up in the past (several times!), but the info about what one of the sides wants to call "liberation" (i.e. 1944, not 1954!), is best directed at the Battle of Romania (1944) article. I mean, what use would that article have otherwise?

Hope this helps clarify some stuff on that page. Cheers, Dahn 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Complicated stuff. Well, here's my view, in case Piotrus gets his vote (I do not object to his proposal, we can work with and around it). We keep "occupation" for the overlap, and "main article" it to whatever articles are established by use. For the liberation of Bucharest, we could simply expand on the King Michael Coup, as a section at the very end of the article (with a "main" to whatever). We could then expand on the fighting in Transylvania in the Northern Transylvania article, using much the same system. In addition, we could add stuff on both at the end of "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive". Then we tie them all with a ribbon and summarize whatever is to summarize in the "Romania during WWII" and "Communist Romania" articles. I well and truly hate clutter articles and POV-forks of the kind some users on both sides feel like creating, and I think anything can be voiced informatively and NPOV, no matter what system we end up with (I just glanced over the Soviet occupation article again, and I note it breaks with about a gazillion guidelines). What do you think?

Serge and Henri don't appear to be related, afaict. Then again, I know nothing about Henri (to my shame). Dahn 12:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Petri Krohn

In response to calls to this effect on the talk page, I'm moving forward with the WP:RFC/U with only the last six weeks worth of edits fully classified. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn, which, after minor editing and addition of the most recent 'interesting' diffs, is supposed to become the main RFC around 21:00 UTC tonight. If there are reasons barring you from endorsing the current summary, I would like to learn about them as soon as possible so the main summary can be endorsed by as wide a coalition as possible.

Thanks in advance. Digwuren 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information.:Dc76 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U on Petri Krohn filed

You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed. Digwuren 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

My apoliges are presented here. -- Petri Krohn 16:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more stuff

I didn't get a chance to reply and clarify a bit what must have seemed like cryptic posts On the Soviet occupation: the problems I see mainly have to do with copyediting, and were probably caused by the constant warring - we probably share the overall perspective on what that article needs to look like. For example, though I did propose applying "Soviet presence" (which could cover the meaning), with "occupation" as the alternative and secondary name, if consensus was reached on the name, then "occupation" should be the title and bold-letters "presence" in the first line of the article. Other stuff involves casual, incomplete and competing formats in references, superfluous language icons, overlinking, etc.

I'm glad Biruitorul cited me on the "not disputed if a bunch of wikipedians state it is disputed" thing, since I that exact same attitude in respect to Anonimu's arguments. Furthermore, and you can quote me on this, establishing a name should not rely on what sources "do not" say (ie: sources that do not use the term "occupation"), but on what sources do say (ie: sources who explicitly argue that it was not an occupation); this, of course, in the event that sources "not" discussing the occupation or arguing that it was not one exist and are not solely of the "Party lectures on history" kind. My main point about the Holocaust survivors' paper was a bit vague, I guess, and I did not gather from your answer that you had noticed my point, so, just in case, I will clarify it: somewhere around references 30-50, after discussion on the liberation from camp et al, there is a very interesting testimonial on the negative effects of Soviet presence (stuff such as "you're free from the camps, now come and work for us in Central Asia"). This may, among other such accounts, give a fuller picture of the events, and one would think that the "Legionaries and their Waffen allies vs. The Liberators" canard* will take an additional blow (just in case it was required). I can only help my comments will prove helpful.

On an unrelated issue: it may seem like I hogged the Kogălniceanu project for a while now, given that I introduced the "to do" with the words "what I plan to do next"; well, to be sure, I never did mean it sound like "let's see you watching me do it", and nor do I want it to seem like I'm telling you to add the stuff yourself - unless, of course, you want to (and I am aware of the fact that you may wish to invest your energies elsewhere for now). In case you do want to, you could jump ahead of me in using the "to do" goals, and you can just as well discard them altogether. It's really up to you.

I can never thank you enough for your kind and supportive words in relation to many other issues. I was a bit backlogged these days, for which I apologize. Dahn 09:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

---

*well, I did see the "this comrade is under attack" picture - I have to say that I never pictured Biru that out of shape, and Anonimu with that much talent for drawing :). I don't know if I'm in supposed to be one of the guys that group portrait, but then again, some would say I feature prominently in this one ;).

I simply reverted it to your version, since what that personal political statements in article spaces is clearly not the way to go (though, I have to say, the article in both stages leaves a lot to be pine for).

About moving MK, it really is up to you (though, in case you want to do it soon, allow me to fill in the Freemason stuff first - it is what I was going to do next). It's a shame that you haven't seen the picture: perhaps not Hieronymus (it looked more Ditkoesque in style, and reminiscent of other great works), but worth every piece-of-colored-paper-I-used-to-pretend-was-money-when-I-was-a-kid. Dahn 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I loved the Nixon analogy ;). Dahn 13:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mănăstirea Căpriana

Multam pentru expansia articolului Căpriana monastery. :) / Thanks for expanding the Căpriana monastery article. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

If you have some time, please help preserve info in this article, and protect it from vandalism. :Dc76 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not know about linking only full dates. Thank you.:Dc76 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I might be doing a couple small edits. I'm sure you know it, but don't forget to Ctrl+C on the text to save your work in case we conflict edit. I will either do it subsection-wise edits, or even refain altogether to avoid one of us loosing editted text.:Dc76 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also using a "rudimentary" window. There are software you can download and install to help you do more tricks (I don't remember the link now, just google, or even search within WP for "wikipedia editors" or similar). But I did not install anything on mine (just b/c I was lasy).

What I know, is two people can simultaneously work on diff sections of the same article without the "edit conflict" message. Hence, if there are 15 sections, and we work on one at a time, chances that we'll conflict are slimmer. At any rate, every section is smaller than the whole article, so even if you loose something, you lose less.

If I edit more, sometimes before ckicking "preview" or "save", I just copy (that's ctrl+c = copy) the text I am about to submit. In case there is a problem, even if the browser fails, I still can paste it into a file. It is unsofisticated, but it works.:Dc76 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you know you can archive your talk page, if you want. To do that, add at the top of your talk page:

{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1]] [[/Archive 2]] [[/Archive 3]]}} ''This page was archived following the instructions at [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Cut and paste procedure]].''

Also copy and remove (ctrl+X :-) ) the sections you wish to archive. Save. Click on /Archive 1. Paste (ctrl+P) the sections you are archiving. Add

{{atnhead}}

on top. Save. Done. :Dc76 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

NKVD prisoner massacres

Did the NKVD kill any prisoners in Moldova?Xx236 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see for example Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina for the number of political prisoners killed during the first year (aroud 8,000). See also Bălţi concentration camp or the Tatarka common graves. See also the processes of the anti-communist movements from 1945-1950, such as Arcaşii lui Ştefan, which besides being an organization by itself (about 200 members, around 50 of which were captured and killed) was also an umblela name for a dosen others. See also the case of the "Vasile Lupu" High School process. There are many other instances, unfortunately yet little covered on WP. :Dc76 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dc76, for answering the question — you obviously know much more about this issue. Indeed, it would seem appropriate to have a more in-depth coverage of the subject. Let me know if I can help. Turgidson 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I do not know much more about the issue. It just happened that I ran across this information more often than you. "To know" means to study it in depth, which I almost never did, everything was out of sheer curriousity for me. There is insuficient bibliography, but even the one that is, is already in many dosens of books and articles, etc. Let me paraphrase Dahn a bit and say that someone is definitively studying this in depth nowadays, and all we need is to find these sourses. If I'll have more time, next weeks/months I'll try copiling a list of such sourses, and post it on my userpage, so that people can add items to it, and know what books exist, what to find, where. At least a very provisional list. And that is something, you definitevely could help with. I will let you know when I progress a bit more.:Dc76 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dorin Tudoran

On July 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorin Tudoran, 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.

The entry read:

• ... that Romanian poet, dissident, and journalist Dorin Tudoran was only allowed to leave Romania for the United States after a 42-day-long hunger strike in 1985?

(Nobody got to mention that on my talk page, so I guess I'll do it myself. :)) Turgidson 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You should have waited a bit longer: I could have given you this one, and you could have given me one for Gheorghe Asachi, because they forgot me as well :). It makes it hard to count them, and I noticed there was a race going on... Dahn 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to ponder (let me know if you're interested)

I was wondering: how would you feel about putting the old sandbox to use again? There are still plenty of articles that could use expansion and are easy to source, and several pitiful ones keep stabbing me in the eye. One such sore is the article on Caragiale, which also promises to be a fun one to do. I did something on Commons in view of that, and I think you may have noticed it on Mateiu. I'm not going to nag you about it, but please let me know if you would like to host and oversee this project (and, of course, if you have the time and it interests you, help source it). Dahn 01:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My exact sentiments. On the plays: I think that the best way is to create articles under the Romanian titles, with redirects (or, where it applies, disambig for the [several] English titles). I also think we could discuss in detail his journalism under an article for Moftul Român. On the Ro FA: my answer to your question would have to be "0%". Allow me to explain myself: regardless of Rowiki's failures, that article is nowhere near standards (it has no citations, not even for the boldest of its subjective statements, it lacks essential details, and its format is a mess). Plus, I suspect much of it was simply copypasted from somewhere. On the other hand, I have around me material that could help source virtually every single aspect of his life - this may sound like I plan to hog it, but I my intention is for us to create an intertwining pattern of citations (which would allow us to compare sources at any level, like I did on MK and elsewhere). In addition, Mateiu and other articles has led me to sources which discuss at length various points that the ro article does not even touch: his Greek origins (which he hid for a part of his life, for very interesting reasons), his politics (he mocked everyone but Take, but somehow ended up moving to Berlin), the disgust he expressed in his old age in respect to all things Romanian, his appreciation for Minulescu, his lifelong friendships with Vlahuţă and Dobrogeanu-Gherea, his love affair with Veronica Micle, his consuming conflict with Mateiu, his criticism of Bacalbaşa, his philo-Semitism, his tongue-in-cheek claim to have been vice president (or whatever it was) of the Republic of Ploieşti... oh, the possibilities. Dahn 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Thanks for the Asachi comments, and yes, I think the DYK guys are flooded with stuff (they also appear to have dropped their guards, and have allowed for inconsistencies in the entries, at times on the same page... oh, well).

I recently bough a copy of Cioculescu's collected essays, Caragialiana, and I have two of Cazimir's books around - they are very valuable for what you're asking, and not just (in fact, Cioculescu's is a treasure all on its own). In the long run, expanding can easily lead to several interconnected FA-level articles in the future (or even symultaneously), where we could add there more or most of the "Caragiale and the lexis" topic; the problem, however, is that it is very difficult trying to determine what those articles should be (of course, aside from the plays and other notable works, which name themselves) and how they should be titled and structured to avoid vagueness and/or content overlap. Would Caragiale and Romanian politics work? should we revive the article on Mitică that Anittas started for, well, very different purposes, and trace on the stereotype from Caragiale to Sabin Gherman? if we have individual article on plays, do we also need articles on characters in plays (i.e. Rică Venturiano - I tend to assume we do not)? Also: it is reasonable to assume that a large article on his legacy alone could be created, eventually - if you agree, how do you think it should be titled? In short: Simţ enorm şi văz monstruos. Dahn 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall starting such an article. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Two points: let's for now take into consideration an article on his influence in general (under a title to be discussed) and plan a section where we could detail his influence on Romanian (or, at least, on colloquial Romanian). Also: I believe that articles on individual characters should be limited to the likes of Mitică, or the collective Lache, Mache and Tache (i.e. "heroes" who either transcend one writing or are eponymous). My rationale is this: we could, in theory, have a large article created on, say, Rică Venturiano or Nae Ipingescu, but they would be largely redundant to the articles on the plays (i.e. all the detail that could enlarge the articles on them would function as essential context in the articles on the plays, to the point where it would be impossible to delimit them as independent articles). Do you agree?

Good idea on O făclie de Paşte (as a side note, wikisource has interesting insight on it from Dobrogeanu-Gherea).

Indeed, this looks like a large and consuming project. This is why I'm glad we share the burden (or is it the joy?). Dahn 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, then. I propose we continue to discuss other possible articles as we go, since it could help us structure the core article (we could, for example, redlink to future main articles). Dahn 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No problemo: whenever you're ready. I don't really know where that info goes, but perhaps it is somehow connected to this series? Dahn 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC timeline

We should have at least a week, so it should be plenty of time to fix anything. Btw, check FAC talk, your name was brought up there...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice bit of expansion on Alan Nunn May

I just came across your expansion of Alan Nunn May, and wanted to say thanks. It looks like a useful bit of work, and it is appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I though, well, why not?

Hi again. Here is something I started. Dahn 09:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. The explanation may be overkill though: consider that Transylvania went through a million such changes (and I still hope that this move doesn't get interpreted as Whig history...). Dahn 11:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Images from ro.wiki

Hi. Please be a bit more careful with uploading images from ro.wiki. Most of them are copyvios which are wrongly tagged "PD". You uploaded http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine:Florian_Pittiş.jpg saying that it was created by ro:User:JUNKIE, although on the Romanian wiki, the page says nothing about who was the creator. (actually, the picture appears to be taken from Jurnalul National). Thanks, bogdan 09:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Turgidson. I have a similar doubt about Tezaurul-pietroasa.jpg (the image at ro:). The picture apears to be taken from the National Museum of Romanian History's website.
  I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 9/Images. - Best regards, Ev 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexandru Graur

Thanks for copyedit and addition to the article. -- AdrianTM 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Most complex university?

UBB is the most complex university in Romania in terms of the variety of specialisations. To answer your question about the University of Bucharest: its "minus" is the fact that the Economics section is actually a different university - the Academy of Economic Studies. But to be honest I'm not a big fan of formulations like "the greatest", "the most complex" etc. I've seen that Roamataa changed the phrase a bit and it probably reads better now. Best regards, Alexrap 11:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:UBB

I agree. Unfortunately now I don't have much time and cannot help there. The article need help, it seems that almost half of the text became about the incident with the lecturers and there are many other things that article should include. --R O A M A T A A | msg  17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A revolution in the revolution

Hi again. I'm still wrestling with Ion Luca, but I noticed that something came up on an issue which we both took an interest in: see here (and just when I was about to admit that I may have been wrong about it potentially being problematic...). Dahn 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. My "wrestling" was in no way a call to arms - I would welcome any suggestion or addition when you have the time, and I hope that what I did in the meantime is to your liking. I have some questions surrounding the issue of subarticles - I'm thinking of turning the final sections (from "and the language" to the very end) into a Ion Luca Caragiale's cultural legacy (or something like that), but I don't know yet if this is appropriate - it just strikes me as the easiest way to split the current version, which is turning into a monster. I would, of course, summarize its most important points in the main article. I'm running this by you because, well, we seem to share the passion for Caragiale, but also because you always have more precision in assessing relations between topics than I'll ever do.

I would also like to ask if I may use your sandbox for this: all of mine are currently flooded, and I had to semiprotect them because of Bonaparte (meaning that a new one would be exposed); it would also help organize the effort, since, if I remember correctly, you specifically wanted to add some info on this part of the article, and since there is a helluvalot more to add there (on films, statues, places named after etc).

I look forward to the pictures, though there is nothing in particular that comes to mind. Something to consider: I don't really know if the place is marked, but perhaps a photo of Mateiu's house on Strada Frumoasă (since it is in the general area)? Or, if it is not identifiable, then perhaps a view of the street itself? Outside that perimeter: Bogdan mentioned something about Ion Luca's home on another street, but I don't know where that would be (probably near Hotel Dorobanţi, but that may be out of your way). I think we could also use a better picture of Heliade's statue in front of the University, and, to stick with my pet projects, a photo of Take Ionescu's (somewhere near Izvor). I was also dreaming about a good photograph of the Faculty of Law facade, for the art deconess of it all (another interesting thing in the area is the WWI monument for the eponymous heroes - if I recall correctly, Biru had an article on it, but I cannot seem to find right now). These are things I planned to photograph myself once I got hold of a camera, but other stuff keeps coming up - if you like my suggestions and happen to pass by any of those landmarks, I would be grateful. (In the past, I considered requesting such photos on the notice board, but I wanted to avoid seeming presumptuous.) Dahn 18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. And thank you. Yes, you could delete the text entirely (since it is preserved in the history of two separate pages at the moment), or you could start a new sandbox for each project (though I suppose this method has its limits - I'm not sure what is considered an "acceptable" number of sandboxes, but I've seen users with six or seven.

I actually knew nothing about the hotel or the guy, and I'm pretty impressed. I must admit I'm also a little confused: do you mean to say you're there? That must be nice (it's the name of the city, after all). Hm, that is a "Titulescian" city, but I'm guessing that nothing survives of his presence. So, no, nothing in particular. (Does Henri N. actually have a page on fr wiki? All I could find was in Deutsch and Dutch). Dahn 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - that where in the world thing must have been awkward... it's just that it came right after the photos thing. I did a quick search, and it seems that others back up the notion that Henri N. was Romani and an amateur violinist (I note that the article you cite actually says that it was his father who was from the "campagne environnante"). Perhaps one could build a decent article on stuff such as this, this and this. I also found some interesting stuff on google books.

Thanks for the sandbox. I'll copy the text there once a sort out some loose ends (it needs some reworking of the references, and I'll have to decide on a summary). If you want to add stuff to the sandbox in the meantime, I'll work it in the text. Btw, I would welcome any comments or suggestions on this article.

I'm also sorry for the delay: it seems your message came just as I was logging off.

Godot, you say? I'd better hurry it up then :D Dahn 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill, conspiracy theorist category

I have just come across yet another professor who wrote an article about Churchill's conspiracy theorizing. She even goes so far as to compare Churchill's theories to "The X-Files." That makes three or four professors who present Churchill as a conspiracy theorist now. Is this debate worth revisiting?Verklempt 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:ElviraPopescu.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ElviraPopescu.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lange Model

Hello, I noticed some of the additions you made to the Oskar R. Lange article. I was wondering if you would be willing to give me any feedback on the additions I've made to the Lange Model article. Thanks so much! --EMB330 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and help. Your feedback was helpful, and I appreciate your advice! --EMB330 08:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Erdős number‎ categories nominated for deletion

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Erdos numbers

I was able to find 22 people with Erdos number 6 with less than 5 minutes of work; see my reply to your comment on the CFD page for details. SparsityProblem 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanian military history task force

Greetings Turgidson, I would like to announce you that the Romanian military history task force has just been created on the Military history WikiProject. Please have a look on it, and maybe you would like to join it. Any help would be very usefull! Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4