User talk:Mentatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Nice work on the Rumanian Campaign WWI 2 Cindrel Mountains 3 Beştepe 4 Stop messing up indexing 5 Limba română 6 Advisor vs. Adviser 7 Union of Transylvania with Romania 8 Welcome to the Military history WikiProject! 9 Image:Horthycolor.jpg 10 From Gligan 11 Dacian words 12 Flămânda Offensive 13 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007 14 Populaţia Bucureştilor 15 Bucharest Stock Exchange 16 Florin Lupu/Foundation DEEP 16.1 = 17 Lupeni strike 18 IAR 19 Kofta 20 HMS London and HMS Coventry 21 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

[edit] Nice work on the Rumanian Campaign WWI

Just a quick note, thanks for the work on the Rumanian Campaign WWI. Nice to see some of those links fixed and the explaination of what happened in the Rumanian crossing of the Danube. I personally don't agree with the description of the Battle of Mărăşeşti as "an important victory for Romania". At best I'd call it a stalemate which worked to Romania's temporary advantage. But I'm not willing to argue about it (much). Cglassey 18:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cindrel Mountains

Salut,

I write to you about the change you have made to the Cindrel Mountains article. I have added on it's talkpage the reason for naming it Cindrel Mountains and not Cândrel Mountains (most usual naming and the one used on the official county's website. Pls revert Mihai -^talk 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beştepe

Thank you for correcting the meaning. It seems I confused Turkish "baş" (big) with "beş" (five). :-) bogdan 18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, Bogdan. I passed through Beştepe a couple of weeks ago for the first time, that's why it rang a bell when I saw your edit about the etymology of the place. Mentatus 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop messing up indexing

Will you please stop messing up the indexing sort keys as you did at this edit of Săcele, and go back and fix the problems you have created in this and any other articles by doing so? Gene Nygaard 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limba română

Pe voi vă apucă aşa pe rând? Se mai întâmpla ca o pagină să nu se salveze bine şi eu să nu observ, da voi veniţi repede să daţi revert şi se pierd celălalte modificări făcute de bine (cele intenţionate). Logic, că nu vă puteţi uita puţin în istoric, sau să daţi o diferenţă şi să copiaţi şi modificările bune în revert. Grea viaţa. Şi de unde vandalism de nivelul trei, nu te supăra? Aşa-i ordinea? 2,3? 1 nu se mai pune (Format:Test - n.r.). --Danutz

Sigur, grea e viaţa asta - dacă te uiţi atent, lângă butonul "Save page" mai e un buton, "Show preview". Nu mi-o lua în nume de rău, încearcă doar să fii mai atent altă dată când editezi un articol. Cât despre vandalism, eu nu am făcut decât să incrementez nivelul anterior, setat de Winhunter. Mentatus 14:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advisor vs. Adviser

Hello! If an edit is useless, is not undoing that edit equally as useless? I did not realize both forms were correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tidaress (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Hi. Of course both edits are useless :) - my point was to make you realize your change was not necessary. I saw lots of similar reverted edits with users changing the spelling variants from AE to BE or vice versa (although it is not the case here) - don't take it personally, but check the dictionary when you're not sure if the word you correct is misspelled or not. Regards, Mentatus 07:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union of Transylvania with Romania

Am vazut ca ai creat in pagina Union Day (Romania) un link la pagina Union of Transylvania with Romania, pe care eu am creat-o ieri. Am mai primit si alte comentarii despre acelasi articol. Cum crezi ca e mai bine sa facem:

• sa mutam Union of Transylvania with Romania (schimbam denumirea si lasam un redirect permanent) in articolul (care ar fi nou creat) Directory Council of Transylvania (e vorba de Consiliul Dirigent al Transilvaniei, creat la 2 dec 1918, adica guvernul Transilvaniei) (asa sugereaza Dahn, dupa cate inteleg eu). Acest nou articol are trebui atunci completat cu vevnimente de dupa decembrie 1918, adica "timeline"-ul meu sa fie decat o introducere
• sa mutam Union of Transylvania with Romania in articolul Union Day (Romania) (de fapt vroiam sa vad daca are sens sa fac asta, si cand am citit inca o data articolul Union Day (Romania) am observat linkul pus de tine)
• poate exista si alta solutie mai buna?

Problema mea e ca articolele pe wikipedia (cu exceptia a 1-2% care sunt bine scrise si organizate) nu sunt organizate deloc: daca vreau sa caut ce exista pe o tema data, nu prea exista liste unde sa ma uit. Poate ar fi bine sa sugeram:

1. crearea unei categorii Sandbox list of articles that have or might have something to do with Romania
2. sa rugam pe careva din administratorii romani sa treaca prin titlurile absolut tuturor articolelor noi create in fiecare zi, si cand gaseste vreunul care poate fi adaugat in aceasta lista, sa faca acest lucru
3. in plus, administratorul poate chiar sa lase un template specific in articolul nou creat, pentru a instiinta (pe autor si pe primii cititori) despre lista, sugerandu-i sa caute prin ea si inca pe undeva (pe unde?) daca cumva articolul sau nu ar fi mai bine organizat in articole deja existente. Ca sa nu fie intrusiv, se poate face un programel, care sa scoata automat acest template in momentul cand articolul nou creat are sa zicem 100 de editari
4. acelasi lucru ar trebui facut si pentru toate articolele deja existente, adica cineva chiar trebuie sa citeasca 1,590,000 de titluri si sa marcheze cele care par sa aiba vreo referire

Vede cineva vreo solutie mai buna? Apropo, un utilizator simplu are acces la lista completa de articole nou create sau articole nou create pe o tema data (exista asa ceva?) ?:Dc76 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mersi foarte mult pentru copyedit-ul articolului. Ai avut ceva de cautat (nume, ani, etc) - imi dau foarte bine seama ca e un lucru care ia f mult timp. Pana la urma cred ca o sa trebuiasca sa lasam articolul asa cum este, fara a-l "merge" cu altceva, eu nu vad o solutie mai buna. Daca tu vezi, esti binevenit sa faci cum crezi mai bine, doar sa nu stergi informatii fara a le pune in alte articole. Am pus link-urile care mi s-au parut logice.

Dupa parerea mea trebuie sa mai elaboram evenimentele din 1919-1920 si eventual sa mai punem niste poze, de exemplu Bratianu, Maniu, Vaida, Ferdinand, Bela Kun, Karolyi, - evident nu toti, ci vreo 2-3; poze cu lupte (as prefera din Transilvania sau de pe Tisa, nu din Budapesta), vreo poza de la Verseilles, vreo poza din Transilvnia din octombrie-noiembrie 1918, daca gasim. Si cam atat. A, vreo harta ar fi excelent.

La inceput m-am gandit sa scriu ca Maniu si Vaida si-au facut partide exact pe ideea luptelor interne dintre politicieni pana la constitutia din 1923 si ca acesta a fost factorul major pentru aducerea lui Carol in 1930, dar pe urma m-am razgandit. Locul cel mai potrivit al acestor detalii este in articolele despre acesti oameni si despre politica interbelica. Asa cum e acum - incepe cu "Statele Unite ale Austriai Mari (1906)" si se termina cu "Constitutia din 1923" mi se pare cel mai logic. Ar fi trebuit sa-mi dau seama de la bun inceput.:Dc76 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Salut si multumesc frumos pentru mesaj. Eu sunt de acord cu tot ce zici tu (in privinta planului). Dar e o mica problema: asta necesita timp si dedicatie, pe care cel putin in momentul de fata eu nu le am. Nu ma aflu, din pacate, nici eu in Romania, o sa ajung abia la vara. O sa incerc sa fac rost de carte (poate o gasec in biblioteca aici, poate o cumpar la vara). Cartea as putea s-o citesc de placere si atunci nu-mi va fi greu sa fac mici rezumete pentru articolul de pe wikipedia. De fapt, de asta si m-am apucat sa scriu un "timeline", fiindca imi era mai mult decat clar ca pentru mai mult trebuie timp. Propun asa: acceptam solutia ta ca varianta pe termen lung si cautam o varianta pe termen scurt: ceva care sa mearga cu datele si timpul pe care-l avem acum si totodata sa fie mai mult sau mai putin organizat in sensul la ce avem de gand sa ajunga articolul. Toate informatiile astea trebuie sa le punem si pe talk-ul articolelor vizate, ca altcineva sa le gaseasca.:Dc76 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

[edit] Image:Horthycolor.jpg

Sorry for answering only now. I had read your message 5 days ago, but I forgot to answer it. (Silly me!) Well, actually I do not know where this picture was taken, except that "somewhere in Transylvania". But, if you are really interested, I have a large film about the well... about the Second Vienna Award, filmed at and after the time it had been signed. This film also tells about Horthy's stops, so if You would like to, I can collect his stops. (I don't know if you know he had a tour around Transylvania in 1940?) He surely visited Cluj-Napoca and Targu Mures, but now I don't know more by heart. See you, -- Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Gligan

Greetings. You told me to feel free to write the Bulgarian for all Romanian towns which were in my country; but your countryman Anonimu removes them without any reason (Orsova, Severin, Turnu Magurele). You told me that the Romanian for Caliakra and Balchik were official and I accept that, but the Bulgarian for these towns above was also official; while the Romanian for Vidin was not (he is trying to add this). He also deletes my edits to Tulcha with sourses, while he has no sourses. Please tell him to stop this insulting atitute and revert the Bulgarian names for these towns. --Gligan 11:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. And in the Middle Ages when Wallachia did not exist, the official names of these towns above was the Bulgarian one, this is why I insist on putting their Bulgarian name. Thank you : ) --Gligan 12:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

there are no bulgarian minorities in either of those town, and there's no proof that they existed during the first bulgarian empire rule, so they don't meet either criteria. However, around Vidin there was an important vlach community (now greatly reduced to about 200)Anonimu 12:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I am waisting you time, but he contunues to provoke me and to remove the official Bulgarian names, please tell him to stop; see his talk page and look that he totally neglects all my effords to prove him my statements without reason. --Gligan 13:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

TO mentatus: I generally agree with you criteria. However i'll never accept to put a foreign name to a city that didn't exist during the foreign rule over a region. This is just protchronism. Like i'd put the Tatar name for Bucharest just because in the 13th century the territory of the city (but not the city itself, first mentioned at the end of the 15th century) was more or less under tatar ruleAnonimu 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you please have a look on Anonimu's page and write your opinion for the Bulgarian names simply with yes or no? He continues to remove them without reason. --Gligan 14:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dacian words

Thanks for helping with the list of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. It takes a whole lot of time to go through so many dictionaries, and any help is welcome. I just want to make a couple of points about this article:

1. As you may have gathered, that list contains Romanian words about which at least one linguist believed they were of Dacian origin. Until now I have found only three sources about such words: the works of Hasdeu, Russu and Vraciu mentioned in the article. But then you added the word bîrsă, and the meaning of my "citation needed" note was that we need a source to say that this word too is believed by someone to be of Dacian origin. You deleted my note and said that the source is this word's entry in the DEX. I'm sorry but that dictionary doesn't say anything about the Dacian origin. Did I miss anything?
2. I'm sure you are aware that changing the British spelling with the American spelling is not okay, and neither is mixing the two in an article. Well, just as bad is replacing one of the Romanian spellings with the other (at the Romanian Wikipedia we have a strict policy about this) or mixing them. The whole article on the Dacian words was spelled with î and I expect you to respect that.

I hope you won't take it personally. — AdiJapan ☎ 07:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I hadn't seen the Cuv. autoht. note -- must be because I tend to disregard NODEX, most of which is obviously copied and rephrased from DEX'98. But of course, you're right, this is another source that can be mentioned, so I added it in the article. Cheers. — AdiJapan ☎ 12:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flămânda Offensive

Salut! Yes, you're right, it really is Ryahovo (bg:Ряхово) in Slivo Pole municipality. I didn't pay much attention to it, so it's clearly my mistake :) Todor→Bozhinov 17:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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 15:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Populaţia Bucureştilor

Salut. Dacă vă uitaţi aici, o-să vedeţi că populaţia oraşului tot fluctuează (schimbări fără referinţe). Propunerea mea este să stabilim un număr clar. Eu aş zice 1,926,334, după recensământul din 2002. Care e părerea dvs? Biruitorul 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ştiu că multă lume lucrează în Bucureşti, dar trăieşte prin împrejurimi sau chiar mai departe. Plus mulţi turişti, care la recensământ sunt altfel număraţi. Poate de asta cifra pare prea mică unora. Poate ar avea sens de adăugat între <ref> </ref> o observaţie în acest gen, adică că cifra nu include... Pe de altă parte, 27322 de ţigani ... e de râsul lumii. N-am nimic cu ei, chiar am cunoscut ţigani de treabă. Da, se declară români, ce să le faci, n-o să le impui.:Dc76 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Chiar articolul nostru despre ei recunoaşte acest fapt: spune că sunt juma' de milion oficial dar 1,8-2,5 mil în realitate.

Oricum, întradevăr nu ar strica un mic anunţ la noticeboard, că chiar sunt prea multe discrepanţe şi aiureli. Părerea mea este că un singur standard - cifrele oficiale din 2002 - să fie numărul de bază, şi dacă există numere mai noi, strânse de statisticieni de profesie, atunci putem să le pomenim şi pe alea. Poate să şi comparăm puţin cu prezentarea acestei probleme la paginile oraşelor occidentale - Chicago, Londra, etc. Biruitorul 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bucharest Stock Exchange

Ce spam frate? Esti dus cu pluta? Citeste ce e acolo inainte de a-ti da cu parerea... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.210.44.116 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Only because the site is using the www.blogger.com platform, you can not categorize it as a blog or personal webpage. It is a general use website with news focus on the companies quoted at BSE. Furthermore, the Wikipedia policy sustains this kind of pages: What should be linked: ... Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. (talk)

[edit] Florin Lupu/Foundation DEEP

Mentatus (whoever you are), if you have anything constructive to add, or relevant modifications to make, please feel free. but snide and negative comments and marking an article for deletion is unprofessional and unwarranted. please refrain. JohnGongwer 11:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mentatus, the articles were removed as I am unclear regarding the policy criteria. However, nearly a quarter of the Wikipedia articles on individual non-profits seem to fail to meet the same criteria to which you referred. The Foundation for Development through Economic Education and Development (2000-2005) was instrumental in launching numerous community based economic development initiatives in Romania's Jiu Valley and sustainable development partnerships with coal mining communities in West Virginia. It was instrumental in getting international donor attention to the needs of the region.

How does this organization appear less notable than the blatantly self-promotional Clarkstown Summer Theatre Festival, or entries like Use.ro? Are Romanian entries less credible than American? --Kyrja 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] =

In your experienced view (I notice you have been commenting on entries since 2004), what qualifies a non-profit organization to be mentioned in an article in Wikipedia? I have read the policy criteria for notability, for conflict of interest, and spam, among your other accusations, and do not see the articles as worthy of deletion, although modifications were warranted. You obviously have set opinions on this, so I would appreciate understanding in detail these issues. Kyrja 20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lupeni strike

Salut. Am scris Lupeni Strike of 1929 - acolo se vede că există multe variante cu privire la câţi au murit şi câţi au fost răniţi, pe când la Jiu Valley scrie clar 32/56. Să schimbăm al doilea articol la ceva mai vag ("dozens were killed and injured"), sau ştiţi cumva dvs. că acele cifre sunt corecte? Biruitorul 02:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mulţumesc pentru link; l-am folosit. Cred că, tentativ, am să includ numerele din Jurnalul Naţional în articolul despre Valea Jiului, şi dacă cititorii vor amănunte, pot să se ducă la articolul despre Lupeni. Biruitorul 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bună. Te-aş ruga să stai pe fază cu privire la articolul ăsta: cică n-am fi fost ocupaţi! Vezi istoria şi pagina de discuţii pentru amănunte. Biruitorul 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mulţumesc pentru intenţiile bune; nici eu nu prea am timp (sau surse destule). Oricum, trebuie păzite asemenea articole. Ceea ce mă îngrijorează mai tare e că unul din ăia vrea să mute articolele "Occupation of Baltic states" şi "Occupation of Latvia", deci chiar dacă scrim un articol complet, cu tot cu surse, nu ajunge. Nu vreau să fiu melodramatic, dar din câte ştiu şi "the Holocaust" este un "judgmental term" - dar nici un om în toate firele nu zice să numim acel articol "Mass murder of Jews by Nazi Germany" sau ceva de genul ăsta. Biruitorul 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Da, cam ai dreptate - dar fii pe fază! Biruitorul 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Război total - la luptă! Biruitorul 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Am văzut că ai pus ghilimele în jurul numelor şcolilor la care a predat Murat Iusuf. Nu-i chair o problemă, însă a fost o discuţie mai demult în care s-a decis să nu facem asta fiindcă nu se face pe englezeşte. Deci aş recomanda scoaterea lor pentru conformitate, dar nu insist. Biruitorul 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Da, adică nici o problemă - nu că încercam să mă impun - dar e totuşi bine să fie un singur standard. Oricum, mersi. Biruitorul 06:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IAR

Hi, i've seen your interrest regarding articles about Romanian Air Force (military leaders, air bases). Please have a look on the IAR 316 and IAR 330 pages and say your point of view about the merge requests of this articles. I really think these helicopters are very popular in Romania and there are not only licensed copies of the Aérospatiale Alouette III and Aérospatiale Puma. As I strongly oppose the merge of this pages, I would like to see your oppinion in this case. Best regards, Eurocopter Tigre 10:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kofta

Salut Mentatus, What is the correct Nume de Köfte in Romınca. Mic sau Köftele? What is the difference. Regards Must.^{T C} 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS London and HMS Coventry

What I am attempting to do is seperate the service of the ships in the Royal Navy from their service in the navy of Romania. In case you hadn't noticed, there are many many instances on Wikipedia of ships who have served in one navy under one name and then in another navy under another name having seperate articles. I suggest you do some reading before renaming articles willy nilly as it suits you. Hammersfan 29/03/07, 18.25 BST

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)