Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:40, 3 November 2007

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, Archive5, Archive6, Archive7, Archive8

New Categories on Romania

For the first time on Wiki, I have created a new template and a new category. I also expanded the WikiProject Romania by adding a page on assessment. These are:

These new inclusions are to help us assess our own articles on the Importance Scale. We already have a Quality Scale, but I think it would be good to have the latter choice as well. How many times don't we see others adding the IS on articles related to Romania, but with the perspective that represents their own country and culture? Now, we have the chance to inform how the topic is perceived in our own country and culture, on the IS. It should be noted that, as far as I'm concerned, most countries have these categories. I first tried to find one of our own, without having any success. If, however, one such category and template exists, the new inclusions can be redirected to there. I would also like to say that 99-percent of the material found on these inclusions are taken from the WikiProject Turkey, and they in their turn took it from WPEU, so all merit goes to them and whoever else worked on the templates and their project. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch Teoctist

Patriarch Teoctist is now dead, God rest his soul. I believe it is time we remove partisan positions from the article concerning him, starting with the article title: Teoctist Arapasu. I suggest we follow for him the convention used for Pope John Paul II and by the Romanians themselved, and rename the article in Patriarch Teoctist. Dpotop 08:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other articles on Romanian Orthodox Patriarchs are titled using the full name of the person, such as Iustin Moisescu and Justinian Marina. If we're going to move Teocist Arăpaşu to Patriarch Teoctist, then the other ones should also be moved to Patriarch Iustin and Patriarch Justinian. I'm neutral with regard to the page move; on one hand, I believe it's better to use the full legal name of the person, on the other hand, other articles are also titled according to your proposal (Patriarch Maxim of Bulgaria, Patriarch Alexius II]], Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople). However what partisan positions are there in the article? Ronline ✉ 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your neutrality from a rational point of view. However, we are not here to be rational, but to report what sources say. Most reputable sources (including the sites of the Church itself, the Government, a.s.o.) call him "Patriarch Teoctist", similar to "Pope John Paul", a.s.o. The main source for the formulation "Teoctist Arapasu" is the Romanian wikipedia, where I edited enough to see that a Greek Catholic (Mihai Andrei) imposes his views on all the articles concerning Romanian Christianity. We do not live in a void, we must follow to a certain extent the example of the other, especially for such sensible subjects. Dpotop 10:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the POV, take a look at the article, and you will see a full section "Controversy", supported by only one "alleged citation" from the BBC. Then, you have some more controversy in sections "Studies..." and "Ascension...". OTOH, it was me who added 1 (one) small paragraph on his invitation to the Pope in Rome. I mean, the oecumenic work of Teoctist is great. At the same time, it was under his patronage that the Bessarabian Church was re-activated, which is important. Dpotop 10:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn and Biruitorul

As much as it pains me to admit this, it must be said that Dahn and Biruitorul are the two most productive members on the English Wiki, concerning with topics related to Ro. Ever since Dahn has made his entrace to Wiki, he, together with Biruitorul, have written two FAs and numerous GA articles. Collaboration between editors grands them greater motivation and improves the quality of the article. For that reason, I think it would be a good idea for Ro members to team up and decide to work on specific articles so to promote them to better status. Do we have enough active members that are willing to do this? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, lovely stuff. Say, didn't you already have a project with your friend? Dahn 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a hit under the belt. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, you are right on all counts. Dpotop 15:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As concerns you proposal to work on picked articles, I remind you that Biruitorul had a similar idea: that of a contest. :) It does not work, because at some point you will always have Dahn telling you that your ideas are irrelevant/stupid/bad. Given that Dahn has one foot in every article related to Romanian history, and given that this is the subject most editors are interested in, I'd say all editors but Dahn are redundant here. I presume one could ask Dahn for "enlightened guidance", but I, for one, am not masochistic. Dpotop 15:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Dahn has intimidated a lot of editors until they stopped editing, but we should also acknowledge his good work. --Thus Spake Anittas 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still more venom? I'm counting down. Dahn 08:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration efforts worked out just fine for me. They always work when people understand English, read and obey the wikipedia guidelines, and grow at least a little bit familiar with how wikipedia works and what it is used for (or at least they begin to do so after spending months on it). All people I have collaborated with fit these requirements, and two more - they are not good friends with permablocked vandals, and they never badmouthed me or harassed me (or anyone else for that matter). I'm glad to say such people are the majority on wikipedia, and many of them are Romanians. This is it in a nutshell.

Now, I'm sure you guys were both advised against using project pages to comment on contributors. Not once, not twice, but many times. As far as I'm concerned, you can carry on with this for as long as you want, but I have to wonder just how much more energy you can waste on this spectacular thread.

Scrieţi, băieţi, orice, numai scrieţi! Dahn 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De prin teze adunate

De la o cunostinta, profesor de romana:

"Latina clasica este o limba moarta, care nu se poate vorbi decat in scris. Dupa caderea Imperiului roman, o parte din latina clasica defuncta a devenit bulgara. Limba romana are la baza latina bulgara, amestecata cu elemente de daca si o groaza de cuvinte slabe. In secolul al XV-lea, limba vorbita de popor era considerata vulgara si n-o vorbea nimeni."

Dpotop 10:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suna ca o prostie. De ce sursa apartine aceata afirmatie? --Thus Spake Anittas 10:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Si cind scoateti tabloidu?

Second Vienna Award

I don´t know what´s up with this article, but it is about a real event. It was not a fictional event, it was not a literary essay, can´t we just say what really happened ? The relevant, clear, unbiased events that happened ? --Venatoreng 21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, K.Lastochka already started improving the article. --Venatoreng 10:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated remark: I just looked in on it again. It could certainly use more work. - Jmabel | Talk 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the Revolution listed for deletion

Somebody listed for deletion the photos from the Revolution (Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_23#Image:Ceausesculosingpower.jpg and below), including the one currently in the infobox of Nicolae Ceauşescu's article. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People of the Romanian Revolution

Please join Category talk:People of the Romanian Revolution of 1989 and tell your feedback regarding the definition we should use for the category "People of the Romanian Revolution of 1989".--MariusM 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn pays a visit to his native village

Only in Oltenia. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice lip service. :):) Dpotop 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know this term existed. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) R O ^{A M A T A A}| msg 14:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an Oltenian, nor was I born in a village. The rest is obviously true. Dahn 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You never told us where you're from, Dahn. That's understandable, since such information would be difficult to fit in a topic. Luckly, such a topic exists now. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krypton. Dahn 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... :p --Thus Spake Anittas 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provincialism in Romania

Dear everyone;

I would like to invite you to read--and hopefully contribute--to the article, Provincialism in Romania. If you contribute, please try to source your material. I believe this article is very important. If you know of any literature that explains the Wallachian discrimination against Moldavia, please include it here. Thanks! --Thus Spake Anittas 06:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. Now, who's going to list it for deletion? Dahn 08:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not counted as WP:OR. Ask your buddy, Bogdan. He had the article Bucharest snobbery deleted a couple of years ago. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can have sources for each sentence and it still could be original research. bogdan 10:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck having this one deleted. I understand why the Oltenian-Muntenian elite wants this to be unseen, but I even linked to an organization that deals with this kind of stuff, giving the article credibility. I checked on that WO:OR--that is, I read the first three lines--, and it argues against unpublished material, theories, etc. None of which this is; and if I remember it correctly, you suppoted Anti-Romanian discrimination. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't supported it. I just said that they should either be all deleted or all kept. bogdan 11:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you argue the same for this one? --Thus Spake Anittas 11:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article writer isn't a real Moldavian. How can any Moldavian say "purjoala", when the correct word is "pârjoalǎ". This is a Russian agent of Smirnov. :):) Dpotop 12:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: the article has been listed for deletion by Bogdan. Dpotop 12:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth without youth

Y without Y has its premiere in Rome, on October 26; and will be released sometime during December. You can watch the trailer here. To my great dissapointment, Bucharest is presented as a nice city, but the movie might turn out to be a decent one. At least that's what I hope. Perhaps the article on Youth Without Youth could be updated. --Thus Spake Anittas 03:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still with your Wallachia vs Moldavia thing. What did they do, rape you. Lisa the Sociopath 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people never change...Anittas, Alex... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.104.254 (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside: I really think that the article on the novella itself - Youth Without Youth (novella) - should be improved. I will work on this when I have time (though I admit I haven't read it and will do so if I can get a copy in Taiwan). Ronline ✉ 07:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the word "Taiwan", that could be my message :). Dahn 07:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liturgical Romanian

This article is fucking cool! I like that word list. Lisa the Sociopath 04:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did (quite) a bit of cleanup on this, but it could use a lot of work, especially some decent sourcing. And I moved it to Liturgical Romania, which is a much more appropriate title. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to do it but I just found out about the hypothesis a few hours ago :) Lisa the Sociopath 06:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would like to know whose hypothesis it is, because it looks to me like it belongs to one of the guys on rowiki... Dahn 07:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD anyone?Anonimu 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For once, we agree. You want to light the match, or should I? Dahn 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to become persona non grata on rowiki ;)Anonimu 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't I already? ;) Dahn 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys do delete it I'm going to copy-paste it and save it as curiosa. The core of the article seems to be a claim that liturgical texts in Transylvania used more Latin-derived terms than liturgical texts in other parts of Romania. I never heard of the Gallic rites theory. However this article could be reworked as Liturgy in Romania? History of Liturgy in Romania? Lisa the Sociopath 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the presence of more words with latin origin in transylvanian churchspeak has more to do with the Union with Rome and maybe even with Latin being the official language of the region for a long time. The Gallic rite theory probably is just another baseless claim in the "who was first" Ro/Hu dispute...Anonimu 20:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first? there's no question about it, and there isn't any dispute.--Space Appolo 11:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, since we're on the subject... (this should really make me popular) Dahn 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 ::::If you guys do delete it I'm going to copy-paste it and save it as curiosa. The core of the article seems to be a claim that liturgical texts in Transylvania used more Latin-derived terms than liturgical texts in other parts of Romania. I never heard of the Gallic rites theory. However this article could be reworked as Liturgy in Romania? History of Liturgy in Romania? [[User:Lisa the Sociopath|Lisa the Sociopath]] 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 :::::Probably the presence of more words with latin origin in transylvanian churchspeak has more to do with the Union with Rome and maybe even with Latin being the official language of the region for a long time. The Gallic rite theory probably is just another baseless claim in the "who was first" Ro/Hu dispute...[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] 20:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
+::Who was the first? there's no question about it, and there isn't any dispute.--[[User:Space Appolo|Space Appolo]] 11:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 Btw, [[Lex Antiqua Valachorum|since we're on the subject]]... (this should really make me popular) [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)