Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 7

message: [This is an abbreviated version of a section now on Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive5]
One photo still needing identification:
:Image:MTR Ceramic 4.jpg		Talk 04:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos again 

message: ===Bucharest===
* Writers' Union of Romania / Uniunea Scriitorilor din România, Calea Victoriei 133, Bucharest; if I remember correctly, it is a rather elegant building that also houses an upmarket restaurant. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also one of Emil Cioran's house (see the link). Dahn 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos sought 

message: * Writers' Union of Romania / Uniunea Scriitorilor din România, Calea Victoriei 133, Bucharest; if I remember correctly, it is a rather elegant building that also houses an upmarket restaurant. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bucharest

message: * Răşinari. We actually have one photo. I have more on 35mm, which I could scan sometime. More for Commons than for the 'pedia, I guess.  - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also one of Emil Cioran's house (see the link). Dahn 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sibiu area

message: * Maia Morgenstern - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People

message: Greier was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. In 29 November he was blocked one week for 3RR  on Lăutari, however he was not guilty, he made only 2 (two) reverts on that article in that day . The 3RR report which was the base for blocking shows 5 reverts, but in 10 (ten) days! . I thought 3RR is dealing with reverts in a 24 h period. Before this one week block was over, it was extended at total ban, without allowing him to defend himself. I am wondering if this ban which started from a 3RR block which was not deserved (he was not guilty on 3RR) was a good decision. I know that Greier made some mistakes, but I have the feeling that admins were overreacting at them, while underreacting at others, as I explained in above section about "double standards".--MariusM 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sockpuppet was [justly] counted as "a Greier". In any case, perhaps such post-ban interventions will make any possible error in the process ultimately irrelevant. Dahn 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you have a personal conflict with Greier. I don't know why you believe the anon who wrote on your talk page was Greier - I understood you were not involved in his blocking. No sockpuppet was counted as "a Greier" as the 3RR report which was the basis for blocking was not mentioning other edits. Why should Greier use a sockpuppet when at 29 November he made only 2 reverts at that article? He has no reason to believe somebody will block him for that and he need somehow to use sockpuppets.--MariusM 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The IP 213.42.21.80 which Dahn consider as being justly counted as "a Greier" in 29 November is different and not related with the IP 66.36.148.4 which same Dahn believe was vandalizing his talk page. First IP is from United Arab Emirates, second is from Canada. Greier has a history of breaking the 3RR and making personal attacks, but, AFAIK, not a history of using sockpuppets and evading blocks.--MariusM 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess you're right about the second one. It must have been User:NorbertArthur. For the rest, I can only speculate. Dahn 02:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greier's ban

message: I have just remembered the first days of this noticeboard. We missed the 1st anniversary on dec. 4th. BTW, the page was created by Anittas, and the second member was Bonaparte. :) Dpotop 09:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it really has been working quite well. So we do owe them something. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missed anniversary

message: Unfortunately, User:Khoikhoi and I, somehow got involved into a quite technical edit war on the Gheorghe Funar article. I tried to have a discussion with him on the matter, but he kept reverting my edits without motivating them on the discussion page and contacted an administrator to protect his version of the article. At the moment the article is protected, so there is a need for more people to express their comments on the disputed issues. The disputed phrase is the following:
As proposed by User:Khoikhoi:
:Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1867 and 1918), and the union of the region with Romania in 1918 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian.
As proposed by User:Alexrap: 
:Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire) between 1867 and 1918, and the union of the region with Romania in 1920 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that according to all Hungarian censuses, the absolute majority (over 50%) of the Transylvanian population has always been ethnic Romanian. In 1920 for example the ethnic Romanians were 57.3% and the ethnic Hungarians 25.5% of the total Transylvanian population.
There are two things that we dispute:
: 1) the use of the term absolute majority
::* User:Khoikhoi believes that absolute majority is a term that only few people understand, and this term will confuse readers into thinking that Hungarians were an insignificant minority in Transylvania.
::* User:Alexrap believes that everyone understands what an absolute majority is. Also, to eliminate any sort of confusion the explicit explanation (i.e. over 50%) was included in the text. Further, to eliminate the danger of someone believing that, in contrast with this absolute majority, the Hungarian minority was insignificant, the exact percentages for the 2 ethnic groups in 1920 were included in the text.
:2) Transylvania as always part of Hungary before 1918
::* User:Khoikhoi wants to keep the following: Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1867 and 1918).
::* User:Alexrap believes that this phrasing implies that Transylvania had always been part of Hungary before 1918, which is false as Translyvania was independent/autonomous under Ottoman suzerainty (1526-1683), Austrian/Habsburg (1683-1867) and Hungarian (1867-1918). Therefore, the following phrasing should be put in the article Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire) between 1867 and 1918.
Please post your comments on these two issues on Talk:Gheorghe Funar#Romanians. And last, but by no means least, Sǎrbǎtori fericite to everyone!Alexrap 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war on the term ''absolute majority''

message: In Istro-Romanians, a recent uncited anonymous edit seems to have changed how the Istro-Romanian language fits in with the other Eastern Romance languages. See my question at Talk:Istro-Romanians#Spilt from... This is not something I know a lot about, but the change seemed wrong to me, and neither version is clearly cited. - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Istro-Romanians 

message: I found the following article in "Le Monde". It's worth reading, as well as the timeline figuring on the same page. I cite:
: La Roumanie se retrouve sous tutelle soviétique après 1945. L'arrivée de Nicolae Ceausescu au pouvoir en 1964 a plongé le pays dans le glacis totalitaire.
Nice to see Romania was not a dictatorship before Ceausescu. :) Dpotop 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no necessary contrast with other periods in that phrase. All I see is an indication of what characterized Ceauşescu's regime. (You may also note the special meaning of the word "glacis", which is supposedly contrasted with the "détente" in place by the 1960s.) Dahn 16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The full paragraph reads: "Contrôlées par l'Empire ottoman, la Moldavie et la Valachie se sont unifiées en 1859, suivies par la Transylvanie, soustraite à l'Empire austro-hongrois en 1918." It is merely an indication of the fact that Transylvania belonged to somebody else - someone else in comparison with the two other countries, who were, as you may read for yourself, "contrôlées par l'Empire ottoman". If the verb "soustraire" itself is troubling you, than you should perhaps look into the history of it, and see why it applies (clue: Romania was promised rule over the region upon her entry into the war, but let's keep it a secret). Also note that the verb "s'unir" applies to Transylvania as well, by virtue of "suivies". Dahn 16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I remember reading an essay by Borges, where he called on governments to set aside special classes in the educational system, during which students were to learn the skill of reading newspapers (learning to tell opinion from fact and correlate them). Recently, I became more and more convinced that such classes should be instituted in countries like Romania. Dahn 16:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To complete the picture Dahn is making: The promises given to Romania for entering the WW1 were not considered valid as Romania made a separate peace agreement at Buftea. Teritorry received by Romania was smaller than the promised one, and the basis for unification of Transylvania with Romania was the self-determination principles of Woodrow Wilson, not the promises made before the war.--MariusM 09:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes if you asked Maniu, no if you asked Brătianu. Dahn 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm sorry, but you don't understand nuances in French. I'm sure the Frence would not like you saying that Alsace was soustraite by France at some point in history. :) Dpotop 12:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will France then allow me to say, like this article, that it "united" with France? Dahn 12:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in Le Monde 

message: User:Afil asserts that the term systematization does not exist in English to refer to Ceauşescu's urban planning schemes. He has moved Systematization (Romania) on this basis, and had prod'ed both that and Systematization. I removed the prod; in the usual course of these things, I imagine he will now AFD them.
The material is now at Urban planning in communist countries with some non-Romanian material added.
Without passing judgment on whether the move was well-advised:
# The word systematization has now been completely removed from the article, and, if he has his way, will not even be a redirect.
# He has not taken on the project of fixing double redirects.
# In making the move, he wrote that "the writer" (that would be me) "probably did not know how to translate it into english".
# I have presented evidence that this word is used this way in Encylopædia Britannica, The New York Review of Books (probably the leading periodical of literary criticism in the United States), and in a Library of Congress Country Study.
# He responded by telling me that the word does not have this meaning because it is not in "the Webster dictionary" (a very unclear designation) and, essentially, ignoring the many references I provided. He concludes, "I don't think that there is any point in carrying out this discussion."
So, basically, I stand accused of incompetence, and currently stand reversed, in a matter where I made the same decision as Encylopædia Britannica, The New York Review of Books, and a Library of Congress Country Study. I will readily admit that I am seething. I would strongly hope that some others will get involved in this matter so that it can focus on what should be done, rather than on a claim of my incomptence. Since my evidence was ignored or rejected by my accuser, I see no way I can continue to engage in the discussion without making this an ad hominem matter.
To be honest, I find this all rather bizarre. As far as I know, my only previous interaction with Afil, whom I consider a generally good contributor, was to praise his work. It amazes me that he apparently holds the opinion that I am so incompetent and so self-evidently wrong in this matter that he would bypass the usual discussion process about moving longstanding page and, apparently, that he holds firm to that opinion even after I have marshalled what I would consider pretty strong evidence for the usage I made. - Jmabel | Talk 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematization 

message: Isn't anyone else posting here these days? 
I recently did significant cleanup at History of Romania. Thought I'd mention it here rather than blindside anyone. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noooooo! I know the trend-lines have been pointing in an unfortunate direction, but please, Illegitimi non carborundum. Biruitorul 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Romania 

message: If anyone is interested in doing an article about the National Opera, Timişoara, I just ran across a fact that is not in their official history, and sounds like it might be worth researching: According to a note on a generally serious forum, in 1948, on the way back to Timişoaraafter performing Rigoletto in Arad, the company's principal soloists were killed in an automobile accident. 
If we had an article already, I'd just have stuck this in there. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Opera, Timişoara 

message: When I open my watchlist I noticed a +/- number placed just after the edit times. What is that number? Sorry for asking this here, but I really don't know where to ask it. Dpotop 11:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a cool new feature -> Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. Cheers AdamSmithee 11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Dpotop 13:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical question 

message: As he is now a European Commissioner, I suppose it is impossible that he is also a state secretary with the Ministry of European Integration in the Romanian government. But I cannot find any source about this, at least in English.--Michkalas 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about [[Leonard Orban]] 

message: Looks like someone has done some nice work at :ro:Calea Victoriei. We should sync up the content. At a quick glance, I'm not sure if there is anything in en: that is missing from ro:, but there is definitely material in ro: that is not in en: - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calea Victoriei 

message: The recent edits by User:132.216.104.200 suggest to me a reincarnation of a banned user. This user is simultaneously rejecting low numbers on the number of Romanians and high numbers on the number of Roma. In neither case is he presenting any real arguments, just saying that these numbers (which seem as well cited as others in the relevant articles) constitute "POV pushing". Use of that term strongly  suggests experience with Wikipedia, so this is presumably not a newbie. - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whois says the IP is McGill University in Montreal. Isn't that where Norbert Arthur was? I'm going to bring this over to WP:AN/I. - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never heard of this person before, but thanks for mentioning it, this may explain a bit of a difficulty I've had with the page on Grigore Moisil, when someone reverted my de-listing that mathematician as being Canadian-Romanian. (Moisil's only connection with Canada, far as I know, was that he died while attending a conference in Ottawa.)  Look also at the page on Romanian-Canadians, and the history there, especially at the back-and-forth about Joffrey Lupul.  I gotta go delete the reference to Moisil from there one of these days, but I don't feel like fighting in a revert war over that, especially after looking at the history of that page...  Turgidson 20:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned user reappearing?