User talk:Dahn/Archive 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] De ce?
Poate ca Sorin Cerin nu este chiar atat de necunoscut in calitate de scriitor.De ce trebuie neaparat sa facem totul pentru a da la o parte un alt roman?In pagina romana de wikipedia mai scrie cate ceva si despre cartile scrise,nu numai despre acel incident,pe care l-ai amintit.Oare nu ar fi mai bine sa aflam critici despre opera sa?Georgina
[edit] Romanii il considera pe Becali drept cel mai sincer politician
vezi text Apostolos Margaritis 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mezőség
I don't think that Mezőség is very used in English...--Eliade 16:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that hungarian name of word is more used in English than the romanian one. That's odd since it's about a romanian region, mostly populated by romanians and nobody heard of it with this name Mezőség. Perhaps you did before and you're customed with. However the romanian name should be preserved first, lest we'll get into irrelevance too much.. --Eliade 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Krashovans
I would appreciate if you present your argument for Krashovans being a distinct ethnic group on TALK:Krashovani before reverting. Thanks. 72.144.150.20 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
...Where? 72.144.150.20 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bulgaria
Ce spui Dan e corect să avem Vlahi (Români) în articolul Bulgaria? Sunt decis să pornesc un RfC împotriva lui Todor dacă nu acceptă formularea folosită şi în alte articole cu privire la Vlahi.--Eliade 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Şi mie mi se pare corectă doar că unii vor să facă ceva de genul: Vlahi şi Români. Uită-te pe articolul Bulgaria. Cred că tu rapid tranşezi o problemă.--Eliade 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Acum e aşa. Dar a fost 3R înainte, plus suntem 3 români acolo, eu, Bogdan, şi încă cineva. Acum e bine, dar am impresia că nu va sta mult aşa Dan. --Eliade 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Am citit argumentele lui Todor de pe talk page, si mi se pare ca este justificat un "and/or Vlachs", sau chiar o separare completa. Daca oamenii se declara astfel, inseamna ca asta ar trebui sa scrie: compromisul pe care l-am facut si pentru Moldovans si Moldova. Nu pot spune ca stiu cata dreptate are Todor (presupun ca e de buna-credinta); daca sursa conflictului este in "cum ar trebui sa interpretam datele", si nu in "cum sunt datele reale", atunci sunt 1000% de acord cu Todor. Dahn 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tocmai aici e problema. Nu toţi s-au declarat după cum chiar Todor spune. Deci? :) --Eliade 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dacă 50% dintre Vlahi s-au declarat români şi ceilalţi Vlahi unde este problema? Nu e voie să avem formularea Romanians (Vlachs)? --Eliade 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-Sacrilege Act
Hello Dahn! I wondered if you had some time to check out the Anti-Sacrilege Act article I created. An editor (who mostly contributes on Charlemagne and related feudalism aspect) insists on taking out the sentence "The Ultras were elected under restricted census suffrage (100,000 Frenchmen at the time had the right to vote)." I wrote the article based on an historian's article and took that from him, because I agree with that historian (Jeanneney) that it is an important fact to know in order to understand the context of the vote of this law (qualified by Jeanneney as "anachronistic", it was never applied and repealed in 1830) and of the overrepresentation of the Ultras in both Chambers. Our editor here doesn't seems to understand that the Ultras were overrepresented; rather, he explictly stated his POV by describing the Encyclopédie as a "pamphlet". I finally convinced him to make a standard Rfc instead of edit-warring, but I'll appreciate it if you checked it out... Cheers! (ps: by the way, I've got a friend from abroad travelling right now in Romania, I might meet him there later, is there any relatively unknown places - well, which I won't find on my own - which are really worth seeing (or getting drunk in, but I assume that isn't really a problem :)? I enjoy travelling a lot, but I have much less tolerance for the hordes of tourists which invade beaches and nice cities in August each year, if you see what I mean... Tazmaniacs 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for replies on both points! Concerning the sacrilege, two things should be underscored I think. First, the user wants to point out it was the same before & after. I'm not 100% sure of that (although I am sure that there was census suffrage before & after, I don't know if the electoral laws were exactly the same. I suspect that they weren't, but should go looking for sources before). I'll just copy Jeanneney's comment here:
- "Nous sommes en janvier 1825. La mort de Louis XVIII et l'avènement de son frère Charles X portent l'espoir de réaction d'une droite contre-révolutionnaire qu'un suffrage étroitement censitaire (100 000 Français environ ont alors le droit de vote) a installée à la Chambre des députés et que des nominations successives ont assurée à la Chambre des pairs. On va pouvoir, enfin, faire litière des prudences du monarque antérieur et marquer une rupture radicale par rapport à l'héritage exécré des Lumières" (I'll leave it in French, tell me if you have any questions on it).
- So he points out that what has changed is the death of Louis XVIII, seen as too moderate by the Ultras, elected some years before. Our editor here seems to think (or want us to believe) that the Ultras just had been elected. Wrong: they were in power for most of this time (the comte de Villèle, leader of the Ultras, was in charge of government for seven or eight years, if my memory's correct). The peers of the Chamber of Peers were not elected, but appointed (thus the problem to your proposal). Anyway, maybe "After the death of Louis XVIII — seen as too moderate by the Ultras, whom had been elected under restricted census suffrage in 1824 (100,000 Frenchmen had the right to vote) — and the accession of his brother Charles X, Villèle's ultra-royalist government decided to seize the opportunity to present again the law project, alleging an increase in the stealing of sacred vases." would be better. But I doubt our editor will accept this reference either to census suffrage or to 100,000 Frenchmen. And if you talk about census suffrage, than I believe numbers are useful. The problem, I think, is that editor claims it is POV talking about that, while I pretend that one can't understand why the Ultras were there in the first place if he doesn't get that they were these restricted electoral laws. My POV is of course supported by Jeanneney (who is the director of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, and the article is taken from L'Histoire magazine, a broad public, mainstream, history magazine...). This is no leftist opinion, but rather a moderate, republican POV! And this editor tries to make this historical statement a POV, leftist atheist point; but again, if he considers the Encyclopédie as a "pamphlet", I see why he considers Jeanneney to be a far-left historian! Sorry to bother you with this point, and I will certainly heed your advice concerning Romania! Tazmaniacs 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Je viens de changer l'article conformément à ce que je t'ai mis. Je pense que juste un petit message sur la page discussion de l'article permettra peut-être de dissuader l'autre d'effacer ca (j'ai aussi ajouté dans l'introduction: "by the Villèle, ultra-royalist gov", ce que j'imagine qu'il va virer en prétendant qu'il s'agit d'une opinion (sic)). Je viens d'envoyer ton conseil à propos de la Roumanie à mon pote, qui se trouve apparemment en ce moment à Salzbourg (véritable musée Mozart dont il essaie de partir le plus tôt possible - tout comme moi probablement, il est en auto-stop...), mais qui se dirige vers là-bas. A propos du français, pas du tout! j'ai au contraire trouvé que tu l'écrivais très bien, je suis seulement retourné à l'anglais parce qu'on est sur le English Wikipedia et que je ne veux pas t'imposer le français par chauvinisme!... Si tu préfères le français, je serai tout à fait heureux de continuer avec toi dans cette langue (parlant moi-même d'autres langues, je suis bien conscient de l'importance de la pratique, ce qui est d'ailleurs une des raisons de ma présence ici; même si ça me vaut parfois de me faire insulter en tant qu' analphabète (cf. Riom Trial :)!). PS: par contre, ça m'oblige à vérifier que "je parle bien la France" (sic), ce qui n'est pas toujours le cas! :) Tazmaniacs 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bulgaria 2
DA. DA. Eşti drăguţ Dan. Din nou, nici eu nu văd nici o tragedie în "Romanians (Vlachs)", dar să accepte ăştia odată :). Astia vor: Romanians, Vlachs. (nu e nasol cu virgulă?) --Eliade 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hungary
What exactly is the difference between "deliberate" and "eliberate" in this context? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungary&diff=66865936&oldid=66707581 Mersi!--Eliade 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC against User:TodorBozhinov
Hello! I started an RfC against User:TodorBozhinov, you should come and help me, since you were involved in the dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TodorBozhinov Cheers, --Eliade 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cel mai iubit dintre pamânteni
Salut Dahn! Am scris un ciot la "Cel mai iubit..." (accesibil de la Marin Preda, dar nu-l gǎsesc în cǎutare simplǎ... Poţi sǎ te uiţi un pic? Merci,
--dio 13:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mulţam fain pentru Cel mai iubit...! Yours trully --dio 13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Romanian wiki articles are sometimes painfuly baaaad! But it would take ages to improve them. Don't have enough force and time...
[edit] Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu Cabinet
You have recently moved the content of the Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu Cabinet article back to the Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu article (and changed the first article to a redirect), claiming that it "does not comply with wiki rules" [1]. What specific rule (policy, guideline, etc) is violated in this case ? I think that separating the articles for the current cabinet and for the person who is the prime minister is a good idea. For example, see: Cabinet of the United_Kingdom#Current Cabinet which is clearly separated of Tony Blair. Additionally, the template Template:Politics of Romania is now inconsistent (because the link to the Cabinet is pointing to the same article as the above link). Razvan Socol 05:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sadoveanu
Hi Dahn, I wish (as born and educated in Moldova...) to expand Sadoveanu and give him a better trial! Half of the actual article is a charge against his communist accomodation... I think he deserves more than a the mention of his propagandistic-aimed "Mitrea Cocor"...--dio 12:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
