Talk:Gheorghe Flondor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Gheorghe Flondor: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Two quick questions:
- I suppose he was also a FRN guy. Should it be mentioned in the text?
- It could perhaps be helpful to clarify what Flondor was saving Jews from? (To an unfamiliar reader, it may even seem that he was saving them from the Soviets.) Dahn 04:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just now I can't answer that - though I assume yes to a, since he was, ro.wiki says (alas, uncited), "ales în funcţia de consilier al Frontului Renaşterii Naţionale", and since it was the sole legal party; and for b, I imagine it was Romanians attacking Jews during the Red Week. However, further clarification will have to wait a little while, until I ask Roamataa/Roamata for more detailed citations. Biruitorul 04:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I see. Thank you. Dahn 06:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just now I can't answer that - though I assume yes to a, since he was, ro.wiki says (alas, uncited), "ales în funcţia de consilier al Frontului Renaşterii Naţionale", and since it was the sole legal party; and for b, I imagine it was Romanians attacking Jews during the Red Week. However, further clarification will have to wait a little while, until I ask Roamataa/Roamata for more detailed citations. Biruitorul 04:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The only thing I can say about second question is what I found in the reference quoted: " In familia Flondor au existat mai multi membri care au salvat evrei de la moarte in timpul celui de-al doilea razboi mondial si anume diplomatul Radu Flondor - consul general al Romaniei la Viena - care a acordat pasapoarte romanesti unor evrei, precum si Gheorghe Flondor - ultimul Rezident Regal al Bucovinei care a salvat 12 familii evreiesti de la moarte." The time frame there is rather vague ("during World War II") -- I'll change it to that for the time being, till something more precise can be found. Turgidson 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- My question was in reference to the "Red Week", so I apologize for not being clear. But your changes are probably for the best: if I understood correctly, is it is not clear whether this was done over a short or long period of time. Thanks, and I'll see if I can come up with more detail (I think I have a Magazin Istoric article about him around here somewhere). Dahn 06:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only thing I can say about second question is what I found in the reference quoted: " In familia Flondor au existat mai multi membri care au salvat evrei de la moarte in timpul celui de-al doilea razboi mondial si anume diplomatul Radu Flondor - consul general al Romaniei la Viena - care a acordat pasapoarte romanesti unor evrei, precum si Gheorghe Flondor - ultimul Rezident Regal al Bucovinei care a salvat 12 familii evreiesti de la moarte." The time frame there is rather vague ("during World War II") -- I'll change it to that for the time being, till something more precise can be found. Turgidson 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Tags
No reason I should be engaging an avowed Communist who calls my actions "vandal-like", but here goes:
a. I'm sorry, I don't know the details of what public-works programmes he undertook, and even if I did, I doubt they would be encyclopedic. Enough detail has been provided for the reader
- Examples of numbers: φ, e, 1+i, even 0. which one is it?Anonimu 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- (1) If by φ you mean the empty set -- that's a set, not a number (its cardinality is the number 0). (2) After a full stop, one start a new sentence with a capital letter. (3) What does this non sequitur have to do with anything, except waste the time of editors who do actually add content to WP? Turgidson 17:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1. actually i meant the golden ratio. 2.as i've already siad, i don't write in english, but in a language only superior people can understand. 3. my argument is legitimate. it was one of the reasons that made WP:WEASEL an official wiki policy.Anonimu 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't write in English (which by the way needs to be capitalized), then why interfere with editors working on creating content for English Wikipedia? And, I do not understand the comment about "superior people". Are you implying that editors who cannot follow your tortured prose are somehow inferior human beings? That's rich. Turgidson 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1. actually i meant the golden ratio. 2.as i've already siad, i don't write in english, but in a language only superior people can understand. 3. my argument is legitimate. it was one of the reasons that made WP:WEASEL an official wiki policy.Anonimu 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- (1) If by φ you mean the empty set -- that's a set, not a number (its cardinality is the number 0). (2) After a full stop, one start a new sentence with a capital letter. (3) What does this non sequitur have to do with anything, except waste the time of editors who do actually add content to WP? Turgidson 17:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
b. This is what we call a reasonable simplification. If I say "The Allies went after X for having been Gauleiter of Y", that's quite legitimate, even though the actual charge may have been war crimes or what have you. Similarly, it's quite legitimate to use this simplified variant especially as I don't know the charges. In case I do find them out, I will put them in, but until then, the reader can make a fairly educated guess (was it "treason"? "Crimes against the socialist order"? "Social parasitism"? Ultimately, who cares?).
- You can neutralize that claim by attribution. something like "Author X claims/According to author X, he was arrested because ..."Anonimu 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
c. Sorry, I don't know what you want here. It's a legitimate encyclopedia, employed by a ro.wiki administrator.
These tags are disruptive and I plan to remove them in short order. Failure to stop disruption will result in my bringing this matter to the attention of the proper parties. Biruitorul 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
| “ | Say where you got it It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear. |
” |
So either make it clear rowiki is the real source or wait for someone neutral to get the book and verify it. (However, if the Reaction brings a scan of the page(s), i'll accept their verification)Anonimu 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Anonimu, you need to stop your continual reverts, and personal attacks on other editors. See Three-revert rule, Civility, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thank you. Turgidson 20:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since you (B+T+D) continue to remove legitimate tags without discussion of content, i consider your edits vandalism, thus i'm exempted from 3rr. Furthermore, i reject your accusations of incivility.Anonimu 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your arguments been given far more attention than they deserve. Your accusations of vandalism are unjustified and thus personal attacks. Your incivility has been patent. But don't worry: all this is being documented. Biruitorul 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since you (B+T+D) continue to remove legitimate tags without discussion of content, i consider your edits vandalism, thus i'm exempted from 3rr. Furthermore, i reject your accusations of incivility.Anonimu 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Has the page been blocked? If so, how come there is no tag announcing the block? And, how long is this block supposed to last? I think it's unfortunate how a user who essentially never contributes content to WP, but just puts tags on articles, can turn even such a relatively uncontroversial page into a battleground, just to prove a point (what exactly is the point? I still cannot fathom it), and disrupting the work of legitimate editors who actually do add content to WP, without seeking consensus, or attempting to engage in a civil dialogue. It just does not seem right. Turgidson 14:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I second that assessment. Dahn 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The page has been unprotected, and sure enough, Anonimu is back at his slap tags & revert modus operandi, with the pithy comment: "request re-protection until users discuss content (and not talk page capitalization or personal feelings)". That's rich, coming as it does from someone who (almost) never adds content. In fact, instead of blindly slapping tags, if you feel so much that something is wrong with the text, why don't you for once try editing the article, and fixing any perceived "weasel words", or whatever draws your ire? Try it, you'll see it can be more rewarding than these sterile reverts. And, if you want to discuss content, sure -- what exactly is that you keep objecting to? I still do not understand, even after reading and re-reading your postings. And, yes, try explaining your beef with the article in a grammatical way -- proper capitalization and syntax help communicating your point to other people, I can assure you. And, if you do decide to edit articles at some point, writing grammatically correct prose also helps there. Turgidson 11:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It must be very hard for the above users (B+D+t) to discuss content, not editors...Anonimu 11:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
